Posted 10/10/08

Unfortunately, about 125 Minnesota educators and legislators did not get much good advice at a breakfast meeting last week. The breakfast featured Clifford Adelman, a Senior Associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy. Adelman was very critical of what some people have done, but seemed to model behavior that he criticized

One of his central points was the importance of the words we use, and of being positive. He urged use of “can do” language. He recommended that Minnesotans dispose of language like “attrition” and “retention,” and “embrace pathways, persistence and potential.”

But Adelman, an advocate of being positive, was quite negative about many journalists and researchers. For example he insisted that the news media “selects data based on the negative or shock value.”

Richard Wassen of the College of Education and Human Development (who also attended the meeting) and I agree: this happens sometimes. But Adelman over-generalized. Newspapers and television sometimes share statistics like Minnesota’s generally strong high school graduation rate, and Minnesota nation leading average ACT (college entrance test) of states where more than 50% of the students take the test.

Adelman praised well-done research. He challenged national studies about percentages of student entering four year colleges, taking remedial courses, and research on the percentage of 8th graders who earn a two or four year degree. He criticized a study comparing the number of engineers India and the US produced, and scoffed at what some Indian “engineers” do.

But Adelman offered no documentation about studies that he criticized or praised.

Some research is more carefully carried out than others. Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes research methods are flawed. But when criticizing others, I think it is important to be specific about what is wrong. We did not receive that from Dr Adelman during his one-hour lecture, or response to a panel’s comments.

Adelman suggested that we recognize the value of part-time students in colleges and universities. He seemed to discourage gathering and sharing data on how many students graduate in 2-3 years (from community and technical colleges) and 4-6 years (from traditional four year colleges and universities). Adelman said, without documentation, that the average time for a military person to earn an AA degree is 7 years, and 12 years for a Bachelor’s degree).

State Representative Carlos Mariani and Minnesota Higher Education Office Director Susan Heegaard were wisely cautious in responding. It can be very expensive to support institutions where people take 7 years to complete an AA degree, or four year higher education institutions where earning a degree takes twelve years.

Why not do more to reduce growth in higher education costs, help more students be fully prepared for college, and put savings into scholarships for low income and middle class students? Increasing the number of students taking college level courses via Post Secondary Options, AP, IB or challenging technical education like that discussed last week would help.

Well-documented, specific criticism and advice is welcome. Unfortunately Adelman breakfast speech did not help much.