LearnmoreMN Blog

Dreams coming true

By Juventino Meza, May guest blogger

Gov. Mark Dayton will sign the Higher Education Omnibus bill that included the Minnesota Dream Act. This is a historic day for Minnesota. It took more than a decade to pass this legislation; we are the 15th state to do so and only the 4th one to provide state financial aid.

The Minnesota Dream Act will:

• Allow students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities if they meet certain requirements, regardless of their immigration status
• Make state higher education aid available to all students who meet residency requirements, regardless of immigration status
• Allow public institutions (MnSCU and the University of Minnesota) to use private funding as financial aid for all students, regardless of immigration status
• Create a Minnesota financial aid application specifically for these students that delinks federal and state financial aid.

The Minnesota Dream Act has broad support. The Citizens League supported it based on its 2009 study of immigrant students' access to higher education in Minnesota. The bill was also backed by community groups (Mesa Latina, Centro Campesino, Chicano Latino Affairs Council), all major higher education institutions (U of MN, Minnesota Private College Council, MnSCU), business and labor groups (Education Minnesota, Chamber of Commerce, SEIU Local 26, Agri-Growth Council), superintendents around the state, Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban. And obviously, Gov. Dayton and Larry Pogemiller, director of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, supported it as well. This truly was a collaborative victory for Minnesota!

I went to ask the authors what they thought. “I am thrilled that after a decade of effort by immigrant students and their allies, their ‘dream of a college education’ became law when Gov. Dayton signs it, said Sen. Sandy Pappas. “I look forward to the talents and energies of these bright young people serving the economic future of our great state.”

It’s estimated that if 500 students benefit, it will “bring $1 billion in new earnings to the Minnesota economy over their lifetime. ($1.8 million is the lifetime earnings of an associate degree; $2.4 million for a bachelor’s degree).”

This legislation is about equity, but it also is about closing the opportunity and achievement gap. It will ensure that all students in Minnesota have equal access to higher education and that Minnesota is ready to compete in the world economy with the future workforce we will need.

“It’s an honor being part of this historic legislative proposal,” said Representative Carlos Mariani, who sponsored the legislation in the House. “I have been fighting for this for more than 10 years. This affirms the dignity of undocumented people in Minnesota. Congratulations to everyone who faithfully and strategically worked to make this law. DREAMers inspire us to be a better people. On-forward!”

Marco Loera, a soon-to-be college student from Rochester, Minn. was equally enthusiastic. “I can finally see my future; I can finally say that equality for all Minnesota students is closer now. This is my state and these are my dreams; now, no status will keep me from being the best I can be.”

Find information about the process here. We know that we have a lot of work ahead, especially in high schools and colleges to make sure everyone has the right information. Can you help us spread the word? Organize a group of students, families or staff and invite NAVIGATE MN to do a presentation about how students can benefit from the Minnesota Dream Act.

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

Credits or competencies?

By Curtis Johnson, April guest blogger

Is it time to retire the credit system? Sounds radical, I know. But last December the Carnegie Foundation, with support from the Hewlett Foundation, said it would review the relevance of the “Carnegie” credit hour, since 1906 the primary metric of student progress toward a college degree.

Andrew Carnegie could not have imagined in 1906 that his device for legitimating faculty-teaching responsibility as the first teacher pension system was introduced would morph into a standard scoring system for students. But it did. And now a century later, Carnegie managing partner Thomas Toch says it “looks increasingly antiquated.”

For starters, a transcript of recorded credits doesn’t tell employers anything about a graduate except general endurance toward a degree. It says nothing about what graduates have actually learned and what they can do in a variety of real-world situations.

But, you say, if students earned the credits, isn’t that sufficient evidence of learning? No, not after a decade of employers’ complaining that even after their human resources departments screen to interview only college graduates, they too often find that applicants are not well enough educated for them to hire. They may have passed tests measuring memory of facts and principles, but they come up clueless about solving real problems, doing critical analyses, not to mention the skills involved in working with others. Some of them still start sentences with “Me and….” This gap makes employers crazy. And it deepens cynicism about the whole higher education system.

What’s worse is the suspicion that many students simply play the credit game — studying just enough to get grades sufficient to earning a credit and collecting enough credits to grab the degree. Studies showing the drop-off in study time between the freshman and sophomore year would seem to support the suspicion.

Let’s hope Carnegie turns a bright light on a potential game-changer movement — a shift toward documenting actual proficiencies, accumulated in a permanent portfolio.

Educators have long talked about assessing competencies. Indeed, one of the institutions in the MnSCU system — Metropolitan State University — was founded on this principle. But most institutions wading into these waters did so by layering a proficiency protocol on top of the grades-and-credit system, producing more work for faculty and administrators. Seen by many as a fad anyway, the approach faded in most institutions.

But now a shift to documenting competencies is gaining momentum as a way to restore the intellectual integrity of the whole system and build new bridges between colleges and the expectations of students and employers.

With the advent of inexpensive tablet technology and rapidly emerging competitive software systems, we are fast entering a no-excuses zone for making this shift. Minnesota’s even home to one of the start-up technology firms (e-Lumen) offering proficiency software and technical assistance for implementation.

Minnesota also has an embryonic system for students to compile (and control) their own portfolios of what they have learned and can do. Called “e-folios” and originating with work at Century College a few years back, this movement is now spreading.

Nationally, accreditation agencies have for years now called for this shift, especially agencies in the western half of the U.S. And prospects for scaling are propelled by the interest of the American Association of Colleges and Universities in marketing the proficiency model all over the country. Former Carleton College vice president Dan Sullivan, now the recently retired president of St. Lawrence University in New York, has been commissioned by the AAC&U to develop a network of institutions willing to commit to this new model. Sullivan thinks Minnesota could be a model laboratory, a first mover; he reports that he’s found at least 10 Minnesota institutions — public and private — willing to make this commitment. Even more Minnesota institutions have said they are “interested and watching.”

---

See an interview with Curtis Johnson about higher education, produced by Twin Cities Public Television.

Not a passing storm

By Curtis Johnson, April guest blogger

Perhaps the ‘perfect storm’ metaphor is overused. But it’s an apt description of the forces converging on higher education these days. Graduation rates for most institutions remain stubbornly low; employers chronically complain that those who do graduate don’t know what they need to know or have the skills jobs require.

Meanwhile, college costs continue their relentless rise — exceeding over the past three decades even the increases in health care costs. Into this supercharged atmosphere now emerge serious online offerings. Once considered marginal, quaint and not very good, the online option has almost suddenly burst into the market as a major disruptive force.

It’s easy to find professors dismissive of this trend. And in Minnesota’s outstanding community of private colleges and universities, there may remain a rationale for high confidence — for a while. You don’t worry much when your institution is doing well.

Here’s the reality: education — including and maybe especially its higher forms — is the last of the ‘old media’ to be disrupted. The disruption is following a familiar path — starting as not so good, appealing first on affordability or convenience, then getting better and ineluctably grabbing market share.

Skeptical? Let’s start with one word: Kodak. In rich historical irony, Kodak scientists actually invented the digital camera in 1975. But Kodak executives, keenly aware that the company’s profits came primarily from selling film, waved the scientists away. In Helsinki last summer, I was told that engineers at Nokia went to management a decade ago with a product design that almost eerily presaged the iPhone (which didn’t emerge until 2007). Again, executives dismissed the engineers with the reminder that the company was doing quite well selling its phones. Well, you know how these stories ended.

It’s precisely when organizations are doing well, succeeding in their field, that they seem more susceptible to the forces of disruption.

So is Minnesota higher education a fortunate exception? Likely not. Minnesota, accustomed for a long time to leading the nation on multiple fronts, actually did lead the nation over the last decade — in disinvestment in higher education. According to some, state investment went down as much as 48% on a per student basis.

A half-century back, Minnesota was an early mover on access to college and got institutions set up all over the state. The idea was to give every student a shot at getting a good college education without moving from home. Well, that is fast becoming an easy proposition — without leaving home at all. Online learning, following the classic pattern of disruptive innovations, is now moving from its early stages to something truly consequential.

If you’re not yet convinced, that’s not mysterious. The online platform for higher education today is about where digital photography was, when all you could buy was a 1.3 megapixel device. Just think back on how fast digital got better. And think then about what truly great learning online is going to do to the undergraduate market (a major revenue machine for many institutions).

Ever since for Stanford University professor Sebastian Thrum and his colleagues offered the first Massive Open Online Course and saw 160,000 enrollments worldwide, assumptions about the future have taken a noticeable shift. And firms like Coursera and Udacity have formed, along with the EdX consortium.

Every college will soon have to answer this question: what is it that we offer that students need to be on campus to get?

Note: Johnson’s second guest blog, coming mid-April, will feature the game-changing power of moving to a proficiency model for student progress. He will report on growing national attention to Minnesota and the number of institutions declaring intention to move to proficiency.

The achievement gap: not someone else's problem

By Mike Ciresi, March guest blogger

The achievement gap that exists between our K-12 students of color and white students will have profound effects on higher education in the state in the coming years and, therefore, on our economy unless we work diligently to close the gap. If we do that, we will help ensure that our students are ready for college and the workforce of the 21^st century.

In a state that boasts the highest ACT scores in the nation, 40 percent of our high school graduates entering public colleges and universities require some type of developmental course in math or English or science. Many are students of color. The achievement gap in K-12 has led to what many experts call a college-readiness gap.

Our colleges and universities have to spend millions of dollars on these courses.

Now consider that by 2018, 70% of the jobs in Minnesota will require some post-secondary education. There will be fewer jobs for people without a high school diploma and those jobs won’t pay enough to support a family. Our businesses will need highly trained and highly skilled workers to compete nationally and globally.

On an individual level, a college graduate earns $650,000 more over a 40-year career than a high school grad, according to the Pew Research Center.

Add to that the changing demographics of the state. For example, Minneapolis is now 40% people of color. In a few decades, the state’s largest city will be majority people of color. If the achievement gap persists, we will as a community leave behind a generation of young people and we will shortchange what our businesses need to grow and prosper in a highly competitive world.

But if we begin to close the achievement gap and graduate students of color at the same rate as white students (in Minneapolis, for example, fewer than half the students of color graduate on time), we can add $1.3 billion annually to our state’s economy by 2020. And better educated residents will mean less reliance on social programs, lower crime rates, higher rates of voting and volunteering, and more students prepared for college and high-skilled jobs.

We should applaud efforts such as the recently announced GradMinnesota initiative, co-chaired by Lt. Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon and Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius. The initiative seeks to increase the current high school graduation rate in Minnesota from 77 to 90% by 2020.

As I mentioned in my post earlier this month, the Minneapolis Foundation, with a host of community partners, has launched “RESET Education,” a public awareness campaign aimed at closing the achievement gap. It emphasizes five successful strategies that are working effectively in some Minneapolis district and public charter schools and in schools around the country. RESET stands for: Real-time use of data; Expectation not Excuses; Strong Leadership; and Effective Teaching and Time on Task. Business leaders, educators and parents can get involved and help make a difference. Many colleges are already working closely with local high schools and middle schools and their students.

The achievement gap is not someone else’s problem. It is our problem. And we must solve it sooner, not later, for the sake of our K-12 students, who are our future college students and high-skilled workers. Find out more about RESET Education and what you can do to make a difference.

Now is the time to RESET Education in Minnesota

By Mike Ciresi, March guest blogger

As people with an interest in education, you are familiar with the achievement gap. In Minnesota, the gap between white students and students of color, and between higher income and lower income students, is one of the largest in the country.

While we have been discussing and studying the achievement gap for a number of years, it still persists to the detriment of many of our students and to our state’s economic future. There are many causes of the gap, including poverty. But now is not the time to throw up our hands in despair. We cannot wait to eliminate poverty before attacking the achievement gap. In fact, it’s time to redouble our efforts to close or eliminate the gap by engaging parents, business and civic leaders, and the wider community and by highlighting what positive steps are working in some of our schools to help our kids succeed.

Last year the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Foundation for Children (RKMC) began such an effort through a public awareness campaign. We received widespread positive feedback from community leaders, parents and educators.

This month the RKMC Foundation is supporting the Minneapolis Foundation as it launches an even bigger effort called RESET Education. It will feature public service ads on Skyway banners, online, in print and on the radio, as well as a media campaign and three major Minnesota Meeting events featuring national education experts at the Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul. A movie trailer on the achievement gap will run at area theaters and longer video highlighting strategies that are effective will be available online.

The RESET Education campaign stands for:

Real-time use of data. Successful schools continually monitor student progress and use data to drive and differentiate instruction. At present, information about student proficiency is not available until after the school year ends.

Expectations not Excuses. Successful schools expect every child to excel and accept no less. Teacher expectations are shown to account for 42 percent of the difference between white and African-American students’ realization of their potential, after controlling for all factors.

Strong Leadership. Successful schools empower school leaders to shape staffing, resources and culture and hold them accountable for student and teacher success.

Effective Teaching. Successful schools consider teaching to be effective when students master the material, not just receive it. Students with a highly effective teacher can gain up to a full year of additional academic growth.

Time on Task. Successful schools have their students spend more time in the classroom and make every minute count. Fifteen additional school days a year would gain the equivalent of an additional year of instruction by the time a student graduates.

Public charter and Minneapolis district schools using RESET strategies have all of their students making excellent academic progress and significantly outperforming students at schools that don’t use them.

Without positive change in closing the achievement gap, the numbers tell a chilling story. Fewer than half of Minneapolis students of color graduate on time. Minnesota ranks last in the country in graduating Latino and Native students from high school. Sixty-one percent of white fifth graders are proficient in math compared with 12 percent of African-American fifth graders. And 87 percent of white third graders are proficient in reading compared with 36 percent of Latino third graders.

But if we close the gap — which we as a community can do — the picture is far brighter. Not only will we be providing greater lifetime opportunities for all our students, but we will be improving our state’s economic future and our ability to compete in the 21^st century. If we graduate students of color from high school at the same rate as white students, we could add $1.3 billion annually to our state’s economy by 2020. Those educated graduates will become our college students and our workers of tomorrow. We owe it to them and to us to make the effort and to succeed.

Won't you get involved by attending a Minnesota Meeting at the Fitzgerald Theater, becoming active with local school efforts and letting local leaders know you support RESET? More information about RESET Education.

Moving forward, looking back

First-generation college students reflect on their college journey

By Rashné Jehangir, February guest blogger

Retaining students in that critical first year of college warrants the attention and resources that most campuses invest in — particularly when we know first-generation students are nearly four times as likely to drop out of college after their first year, compared with their more traditional peers. But there is an increasing call to consider the experience of these students throughout the college journey.

In my last post I wrote about the importance of creating classroom spaces for students to share their narratives. To extend that conversation, I would like to share some preliminary results of a current research project in which I conducted focus groups with first-generation, low-income students who were juniors, seniors and recent graduates in Minnesota. The intent of the study was to understand how these students — these so called “success stories” — had navigated the academy to make the progress they had. Several key themes have emerged in early analysis and I will highlight two below:

Visible/Invisible: Students were acutely aware of grappling with their multiple identities throughout their college careers. They talked about feeling at once isolated and singled out, particularly those low-income, first-generation students who were also students of color or immigrants. As one student, Monica, said:

“Coming into college was really hard for me to find people that looked like me. I was scared of what the classes would look like. I came from a Saint Paul public school, and I would look around and I would know that half of those students were in private schools, they have a better education then I do, they come from better families, so it was really intimidating like I didn’t know if I could be as good as they were."

Perpetual Border Crossers: Students also talked a lot about the chasm between their home world and the world of academia. This chasm was complicated by parental expectations of success in college while still maintaining familial roles, responsibilities and cultural perspectives. Dawb, an immigrant first-generation student said:

“Sometimes you have to abandon some of who you are and adopt to some of who they are in order to have more access and more opportunities, so you have to adopt the culture… and give up some of your culture. But when you do that, people from your culture think differently from you.”

They described their place in college as a burden of privilege where they were both excited by the opportunities ahead and overwhelmed at being the constant role model for their family and community.

Students also talked about how they sought to manage this constant ambivalence by seeking out safe places and allies who understood the tightrope they walk as they tried to make sense of their own identities. Many students noted that summer bridge programs were the most meaningful and useful conduit to academic and social integration in college. TRiO programs and multicultural offices with staff who understood their lived experience also got high marks. They had several suggestions for faculty and administrators — a common one was a creation of some sort of safety net for mistakes — the kind that parents of students whose parents went to college have in the form of financial support and advocacy. The other suggestion was for staff and faculty that reflect the changing demographics of the study body. Finally, prior to making policy decisions about first-generation students, they asked that institutions find a way to listen to their needs.

As David put it: “just listen, and think about what it’s like to be in our shoes.”

There is a lot more to add, but this is all I had space for today.

Telling stories in school

By Rashné Jehangir, February guest blogger

Last year my 5-year-old kindergartener came home from school and proudly proclaimed: “We are writing personal narratives in class!” I tried to contain my glee and asked for an explanation of these big words. She said matter of factly: “Well, it a story about your life that you write and then share with your class.” From what I heard, this assignment generated a great deal of excitement in her classroom in St. Paul. Stories matter — whether you are 5 or 55, the opportunity to tell your story is powerful. Yet, so often in academia, we implicitly ask students, particularly first-generation, low-income students — to leave their stories outside of the classroom. Instead, what if we as educators intentionally designed opportunities for this new majority of students to share their personal narratives in class and integrate this type of reflection into course objectives?

We often celebrate this expression of voice in young children but the space and time to do the same in higher education is limited. In some cases, the value of narrative is undermined as “anecdotal” and contrary to the real academic work that happens in college classrooms.

Here’s the rub: The composition of our college campuses is changing — and with it the narratives that shape how and which students get to college. What will sustain them through the journey is changing too. Today more and more students who are first-generation and low-income are getting to college, but it is well documented that (Engle & Tinto, 2008) a disproportionate number leave without a degree and with considerable debt (NYTimes.com). We know that financial constraints, perceived and real gaps in academic preparation, family commitments and distance both literal and metaphoric between campus and home worlds contribute to the lack of belonging. To challenge these issues requires creativity and a shift in what we consider valuable in the academy. And this is one place where the stories come in.

For the past 10 years I have been researching first-generation students’ perspectives about spaces that allow them to give voice to their own experiences. This research has been imbedded into my teaching with an effort to intentionally design opportunities for students to share their lived experiences as a means of deepening written and oral skills as well as expanding their perceptions of the diversity in their classrooms.

In the excerpts below, two first-generation low-income students describe their participation in a Biographical Object assignment where students write about a meaningful object in their lives while also sharing the story in class:

“When we shared our biographical objects, I feel that we share about our past, ideals, ambitions and values. We are more in tune with each other and how it relates to what we are learning in class.”

“I have been trying to fit in this society since the day I got here, to be able to succeed and be part of this country that has too much to offer. When we did this activity I realized how everyone is the same. We all have memories that make us remember who we are and what we are fighting for. I felt how I was part of the class and part of the university and its students… I am not so different.”

For these students the narrative medium invited them to the center of the classroom experience and created space for reflection on self while also connecting more deeply with content material and the experience of others.

It is critical to know and understand the stories that constrain the first-generation journey in college. We can use these lived experiences as a means of informing practice and policy on campus. But it is equally important to ensure that this narrative of limitation is not the primary and defining story of who first-generation students are. If your story already defines you based primarily on your perceived deficits, it is harder to feel like a full citizen on campus. Nigerian author Chimamanda Adiche describes this as “the danger of the single story” — a narrative that collapses and flattens who you are. First-generation students are not a homogenous group and giving them intentional spaces to tell their own stories can go a long way in cultivating a sense of full citizenship in the academy and teaching how we can better support them.

STEM inequity starts early

By Yvonne Ng, January guest blogger

As a new mother, I’m seeing STEM education efforts through a slightly different lens. It is important for me to be sure that my son and his classmates have every opportunity to be employable in our high tech future (so he can get a good paying job, move out of the house, and if I raise him right, tend to my husband and me in our old age!).

But seriously, I’m not the only one. Efforts by organizations like Generation: Next and Minnesota Compass are trying to ensure that our educational system unlocks the potential of all our children.

In Minnesota, this is particularly important, not just for our bastion of biotech firms, but also for manufacturing and engineering companies. Having conducted interviews for my husband’s engineering services company, I have seen firsthand how difficult it is to find candidates with the required technology and education.

The need for a local STEM talent pool will only increase. At a recent medical convention, the buzz was about “onshoring.” China’s rising fuel costs and standard of living is bringing manufacturing jobs back to the States. This means that our educational system must produce quality STEM professionals — thus employable in the future will mean “STEM ready.”

However, I am concerned that the indicators used by these initiatives lack a key feature. Don’t get me wrong: the reading and math benchmarks make sense, though I know there is debate about whether the timing is soon enough for math to intervene. However, the items are all very, well, “heady” while studies show that it is experience in STEM related activities that affect competence, confidence and comfort — especially in currently underrepresented populations of females and those from financially challenged homes. I’m concerned that without full appreciation of certain experiences in STEM-readiness, we may unintentionally leave our population largely untapped.

For example, spatial, not mathematics, tests are considered the best indicator for success in STEM areas [Root-Bernstein, Can women be creative scientists?]. Spatial is defined as folding 2D shapes into 3D, rotating objects in one’s mind, imagining mechanical motion, and seeing spatial patterns and relationships [Newcombe, Picture this]. These are developed mainly through hands-on manipulation and investigation of devices — activities that often happen before even entering school.

Experience with tools and technology are one of the missing link for girls which prevents them from experimenting, and thus innovating with technology, a necessary characteristic of an engineer [Schreuders, Pipeline or personal preference: women in engineering]. Men cite having played with these at a young age, which makes many women feel that they cannot catch up and results in them constantly feeling like an imposter engineer, computer scientist, etc. [Margolis, Unlocking the Clubhouse].

So is a child who lacks the opportunities to play with and develop these skills doomed? Not with good teaching. Effective educators teach mathematics with tangible objects to create concrete physical experiences in the classroom and link to the abstract concepts of mathematics. Inquiry experiences in class give children who have limited at-home experiences with nature a leg up. Key art and hands-on experiences can improve spatial skills.

Indirect evidence seems to support this: Girls have scored noticeable improvement in the standardized test for mathematics over the past 20 years [Monastersky, Primed for Numbers]. Students struggling with engineering drawing classes (notably, most of the women students) saw noticeable improvement when spatial skills were explicitly taught [Sorby, A course in spatial visualization and its impact on the retention of female engineering students].

An effective teacher is the link between sound curriculum and the individual child. He/she determines the strengths and gaps in students and appropriately enhances their education to unlock the potential of each student. In every in-service class I have taught, this desire to help their students achieve is at the heart of every successful teacher.

The United States is one of the few places that gives — in theory — every student the opportunity to prepare for college. The down side is that we put more burden on the teacher to provide equal access through education, despite the fact that some children start school never having visited a park, a zoo or a museum. Some have never ridden bikes, taken apart or fixed a gadget, or made paper creations with scissors, tape or glue.

These missing experiences with nature, the designed world, and tools and technology are what teachers must identify, accommodate and measure as they try to continue to give an equal education to all. Key indicators must: 1) include some evaluation of experiences that develop a child’s spatial skills and 2) be measured earlier so we keep the STEM door open to more students rather than play catch up (or worse, resign to missing the boat) in middle or high school.

STEM education needs to get real!

By Yvonne Ng, January guest blogger

As an engineer and computer science professor at a liberal arts institution — and a women’s institution to boot — it was heartening to learn that the White House is focusing much-needed resources and energy to bear on a challenge with which I have been grappling for years.

In early December, the Obama administration designated increasing the number of students earning undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) by one million over the next decade as a Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) goal.

Based on recommendations made by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, “Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,” these CAP goals specify women and under-represented minorities of particular interest as they represent an untapped pool of college graduates.

This can only help and support Minnesota students seeking higher education and attracting them to STEM fields, which Minnesota’s workforce urgently needs.

When I first started teaching computer science at St. Catherine University, I taught, as most professors do, the way I was taught: lectures, example programs/problems and standard homework questions. As my initial overfull classes dwindled by half by the end of my second year, it was clear that something needed to change or I would put myself out of a job. Luckily, students shared with me their brutal feedback — GET REAL!

Lessons revolving around inputs, outputs, variables, conditionals and iteratives were interesting and the way they could make the machine do tricks was nifty, but how, they asked, did it relate to computers in the real world?

Drawing on my time in industry, I realized they needed projects that would engage them creatively. Motivating projects combined with good curriculum design results in students who don’t whine, “Why are we doing this?” but instead demand, “When are you going to teach us this?” “Are you sure that gives us enough time to get our project to work?” Students become collaborators in their learning.

And you know, that’s how it is in the real world — you learn what you need to do to make your project a success. And it’s not just personal pride that motivates: It’s the sense of doing what’s needed for the company and its workers; your success means something real. A former boss reminded me of this every time our computer-automated system broke down: every minute down was food out of customers’ mouths — their bread and butter depended on our systems working reliably and accurately.

The young women in my classes thrive on this. While nobody starves, it’s important that their projects involve something that they care about — something they want to work. When they say, “Gosh, this will be SO COOL,” then I know I have them. They will push themselves to master the concepts, make the connections and put in the grunt programming time needed to code their masterpiece.

This kind of project-based learning and careful curriculum design has been critical to the success of “Engineering for Everyone” courses I teach at St. Kate’s. The secret to success again is real projects that allow students to see the applications of the theory in something they have a vested interest. They get their hands dirty; they spend long hours “in the shop” (or at the kitchen table); and they test-redesign-test again to get the device to work.

It’s not surprising that reality is important for females. The majority has not had these experiences as children so they need to have the time to play in reality. As adults, they learn more from this play in a shorter period of time, so a college course with planful “hands on” components can jumpstart a “disadvantaged” student.

It’s not just women who statistically lack these experiences with STEM reality: students from lower economic backgrounds often lack these experiences, and interestingly, we now find those from upper class backgrounds are equally lacking.

The former don’t have enough money to own “things” like bicycles to have a context for mechanical concepts like gears or crankshafts. The latter have so much money that they don’t fix things, so how things work is just as big a mystery.

I once heard that insanity was doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. It’s time to stop the insanity of teaching STEM topics the same way and expecting women and other under-represented students to flock to them. The decades long track record of this method of teaching shows it is successful at NOT encouraging them into STEM.

As the president’s PCAST report recommends, we need “a diversification of teaching methods” that are “more effective in reaching all students.”

So let’s replace the insanity with a good dose of reality. After all, if the students are excited about doing real STEM projects, then won’t they love their STEM jobs?