Jamie P. Merisotis, President, Lumina Foundation for Education
GFE Meeting, San Francisco, CA

Thank you, Chris. I want to begin by saying how delighted I am to be here for this briefing session. Events like this one — and Grantmakers for Education itself — represent very valuable resources for me. As many of you know, I’m relatively new to philanthropy. I became president and CEO of Lumina Foundation just eight months ago, after spending nearly 15 years as president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. Having spent most of my professional life as a policy analyst and researcher, I’m much more familiar with grant-seeking than with grant-making, so you can see why this type of gathering is immensely helpful to me.

It’s also helpful for me to be involved with GFE because so many of the organizations you represent are deeply involved in the K-12 arena — an area that has not been the focus of my work. Clearly, you all have a lot to teach me, so I welcome the chance to learn from you, and to sit with you on THIS side of the funders’ table. It’s a good place to be, and it’s an exciting new phase in my life.

That said, I’m here today because the planning committee asked me to share some lessons from my previous life. My task: To draw on my experience in policy work and somehow link that to the work we now all share as grantmakers. Actually, Chris did me the great favor of helping me prepare for this meeting by giving me a very specific assignment — one that seemed quite simple at first. All she wanted me to do was answer two questions:

• No. 1: Why has college attainment been such an elusive goal?
• No. 2: What should we, as education funders, do to improve attainment?

OK…so those are REALLY tough questions. Not exactly the multiple-choice test I was hoping for. Still, despite their inherent difficulty — or perhaps because of it — these questions are vital. In fact, they are the questions that now largely define my professional life and guide the actions of all of my colleagues at Lumina. So, I’ll do my best this morning to at least sketch out some answers.

Let’s start with Question 1: Why has it been so hard to improve college attainment rates? I think it’s been hard for two basic reasons — reasons that can be summed up in two conveniently similar words: complexity and complacency. We’ll tackle complacency a bit later. For now, let’s focus on the complex nature of the college-attainment equation.

The fact is, getting a college degree isn’t a simple transaction. It’s a years-long process, one that requires specialized knowledge and specific behaviors from students and their families. Students don’t just become college graduates; a variety of factors must combine to make that happen. First of all, they must see a college degree as a viable goal, one that is both desirable and attainable. Next, they must be properly prepared for the academic rigors of college-level coursework. And that preparation must begin early — years before they even begin the procedural steps that lead to enrollment: entrance exams, college visits, application essays and the like. Once accepted, they must somehow find a way to pay for their education — and keep paying for it all the way through to graduation. They need encouragement and guidance from people who have been there before: parents, older siblings and other mentors who can help them find their way into and through the sometimes-bewildering higher-ed system. Once in the system, they need consistent support to succeed — formal support from the institution and informal support from peers, friends and family.

Aspiration … academic preparation … help with the college-search and application process … financial knowledge and resources … ongoing encouragement and support. These are just a few of the factors that affect degree attainment. And any one of them is really a multifaceted puzzle in itself. Think about it: Just how DO we cultivate the college-going tradition among families and cultures that lack such a tradition? How can we ensure that every student is properly prepared for college — and where do we find the money and time and talent to make that happen? Is there a way to make sure that college is affordable for everyone who is qualified? What types of encouragement and support services are most effective, and how can we make the most effective ones more widely available?

ALL of these questions are tough — and all of them are complicated further by some difficult demographic realities. We know that a growing proportion of students in the coming decades will be those who typically face the highest barriers to college success: low-income students, first-generation students, students of color. That means the difficult work in which we are all engaged is bound to get tougher before it gets easier.

So, the task of improving college-attainment rates isn’t a single problem, it’s an interlocking, ever-changing puzzle. Complexity … that’s the most obvious reason for graduation stagnation.

But there’s another, less evident reason for lagging attainment: complacency. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t mean to suggest that individual STUDENTS are complacent — or that university administrators and faculty members don’t care about the success of those in their charge. I know that’s not the case. I’ve been on campuses all over this country and seen far too much evidence to the contrary. In fact, on some campuses, the energy and effort invested in student success are nothing short of amazing.

No, the complacency I see isn’t personal; it’s systemic and societal. Our college-success rates are too low because, until quite recently, there’s been no compelling need to improve them. Simply put, higher college-attainment rates haven’t been a priority, either for institutions or for society at large.

At the institutional level, the name of the game has always been enrollment, not attainment. By and large, colleges and universities are funded based on the number of students who enroll, not on the percentage of those students who earn degrees or certificates. There’s been some movement recently to alter that formula, with some states looking to performance-based funding models that reward increases in graduation rates or actual learning outcomes among students. But those types of higher-ed funding models are still very much in the developmental stage. They are the exception, not the rule.

And that is really no surprise because higher attainment rates haven’t really been a priority — for states or for the nation as a whole. In fact, for nearly half a century — and until the current generation of college-goers came of age — the United States had the best-educated population in the world. Roughly 39 percent of our population holds a two-year or four-year degree, and that percentage has held steady for nearly 30 years. Until recently, 39 percent was more than good enough.

Well, those days are gone. Today, our nation ranks 10^th among industrialized nations in the percentage of 25-to-34-year-olds with college degrees. Canada … Japan … Korea … several of the Scandinavian countries… All are in front of the United States. Several other European countries and Australia are poised to soon overtake us. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these global statistics is the fact that the United States is one of only two countries whose younger generation is less well educated than the one that preceded it. Clearly, we stand to lose a great deal — as a nation and as individual citizens — if this trend continues.

Of course, when we make international comparisons, there is an important caution. Our rallying cry as a nation should not be Beat Finland!, as one of my Lumina colleagues likes to joke. The real point is not our position on the top 10 list. What really matters is that the rest of the world is roaring ahead with investment in higher education as a critical national goal while the U.S. is stuck in neutral. In short, we’ve become complacent. We’re doing essentially what we’ve always done the same way we’ve always done it.

So — now for the more important question: How do we, as foundations, break through these walls of complexity and complacency? What specifically can we do to improve college-attainment rates?

I think the answer here is threefold — a series of three steps that are necessary when tackling any sort of complex and seemingly intractable problem:

• Step 1: Set a big goal, and make it specific.
• Step 2: Create a logical plan to achieve the goal.
• Step 3: Use every tool available to implement the plan.

I know. It all sounds so obvious. But as someone who has worked on higher-education issues for two decades — and in the process observed many foundations at work — I can assure you that this “obvious” process is not nearly as common as it should be. At Lumina Foundation, we are committed to this process.

First of all, we’ve set a specific and measurable goal that will focus and guide all of our work. It’s an ambitious goal, one we feel is necessary for our nation to meet the growing demands of the global marketplace: We believe the level of two- and four-year degree attainment among Americans must increase from the current level of 39 percent to 60 percent by the year 2025. That’s our Big Goal.

I realize that many of your organizations support efforts that focus on the early portions of the education pipeline. Still, even though your specific aims may differ from ours at Lumina, we’re all working toward the same ultimate end—a better-educated populace. Our proxy for that end is the Big Goal: 60 percent degree attainment by 2025.

Since we established that goal, certain inescapable truths have emerged — truths that pointed us toward several areas of vital work. For example:

• We see that, because of changing demographics, achievement rates among the nation’s underserved students will have to rise dramatically; we know we have to close the achievement gap.
• We see that, because the nation’s higher-education system is decentralized and variable, we cannot work solely at a national level; much of our work will be done in individual states.
• We see that, because our resources are tiny when compared to the scope of the problem, we must leverage those resources in many different ways.

We considered all of these truths — and other lessons gleaned from the research and programs that Lumina and many of your own organizations have funded over the years — as we took Step 2: developing a logical plan to achieve the Big Goal. As we implement that plan, we try very hard to make sure that everything we do — every program we fund, every outreach effort we make, every meeting we convene — has a direct, strategic link to the ultimate goal.

Finally, as we follow the plan, we also make a concerted effort to attack the college-attainment problem from every conceivable angle. As my Lumina colleagues have already heard me say countless times: We try to use every tool in our toolbox. And as a foundation, Lumina has a number of powerful tools at its disposal — as do your organizations. Whether you are operating in early-childhood education, the K-12 years or higher education, the tools apply.

The first and most obvious, of course, is our grant-making budget. We try to use it strategically, to fund organizations and initiatives that align well with our plan and work toward our goal. I’m sure you do the same.

But there are other tools that can sometimes be even more effective than giving grants. For example, as we look ahead to the next several years of our work at the Foundation, I expect to increase the Foundation’s use of two specific tools: policy work and convening.

The increased emphasis on policy, and particularly policy advocacy, should be no surprise, given my history as founder and former president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. In that role, I learned firsthand how policy can act as a lever for systemic change in higher education.

I realize that some foundations — and some foundation boards — are reluctant to step into the policy arena. Some hold to the often-irrational fear that they will violate IRS rules that prohibit direct lobbying of legislators. Others may simply shy away from the risks inherent in taking positions and publicly advocating for change. I understand these fears; my own organization has had them. But I’m happy to say we are confronting and conquering those fears … because there is no question that philanthropic organizations can and should be involved in public policy advocacy. In fact, in our shared area of interest — education — it’s almost impossible to create lasting, substantive change without entering the policy arena. Certainly, it’s important to bring your board along with you as you enter this arena. Be frank and candid with them about the risks and advantages of policy work, and get their buy-in and support for the policy goals you seek and the tactics you plan to pursue to advance public policy.

And there are a number of effective tactics. In fact, I recently stumbled on a publication that spells them out beautifully: the Spring 2008 issue of Insight magazine, which is published by Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families, an organization very similar to GFE. This issue is titled “Setting the Policy Table,” and it’s a great primer for any foundation that is considering policy work. It’s available for free download at “GCYF.ORG.”

The magazine lists seven of the most effective and important things foundations can do to advance a public-policy agenda. They are:

• Convening
• Research, analysis and best-practice recommendations
• Public education and communication
• Policymaker education and engagement
• Coalition building
• Organizational capacity building
• Evaluation

I’m happy to say that we are pursuing all of these tactics at Lumina. We’re very serious about supporting policies that promote access to — and success in — higher education on many different levels. At one end of this policy spectrum are activities such as building the capacity of state government entities, along with regional and national organizations, to support effective policymaking. We also will be supporting issue framing and analysis through our research and through demonstration projects. These are the kinds of tactics that philanthropy has typically endorsed.

But my goal is to move the Foundation toward more direct investment in public will-building — media outreach, coalition building — as well as investing in agenda setting by participating in policy development. Ultimately, we hope to provide resources that promote the development of model legislation, regulatory frameworks and other practical tools that go beyond the conceptual work that defines much of what philanthropy has done previously.

Let me offer two examples of this type of developmental work that Lumina will pursue to help make higher education more productive:

First, we’re especially interested in efforts to alter public funding for colleges and universities so that it rewards course and degree completion rather than simply paying institutions to enroll students in courses. We think this shift will go a long way toward addressing the type of “systemic complacency” that I talked about earlier.

Second, we’re very interested in supporting policies that will improve and standardize the collection and dissemination of student-record data at the nation’s colleges and universities. Without consistent, reliable data, we can’t even know if we’re closing achievement gaps or improving graduation rates. That’s why we believe every institution needs to do some basic things like track the enrollment, progression and completion of students by race/ethnicity, income and age. Also, every institution should define and report learning outcomes in such a way that it’s easy to see what value the institution has added. I would even argue what I advocated in my prior life at IHEP, which is that every state should have a student-unit record system that combines K-12, higher-education and employment data. These systems should permit cross-state tracking and analyses, and the data that show how institutions are performing should be made public and disseminated broadly. All of these steps are important — and none can really be taken without policy engagement.

You’ll note that convening was the first item mentioned on Insight magazine’s list of tactics — and we at Lumina will certainly continue to use this approach as a way of advancing our policy agenda. In fact, I think this is a tactic that deserves special mention because of its enormous potential for impact.

Since arriving at Lumina, I have talked about the need to convene the nation’s best, most innovative thinkers, particularly by engaging new voices and fresh perspectives in the debates about how best to promote college access and success. In fact, Lumina and other foundations occupy a unique and vital position among the various, sometimes-competing stakeholders that affect student success. We — and many of you — have the power to convene policymakers, business and campus leaders, and experts on higher education in ways that can accelerate progress on key issues. We need to use that power to benefit students and society.

At Lumina, we are looking actively for solutions in new places while fostering discussion, debate and strategies among a wide array of stakeholders. Just last week in Indianapolis, we engaged business and workforce leaders in a discussion about how they can help us bring about more rapid policy change in higher education. In early June, we convened a group of international experts in Washington, D.C., to examine how lessons of higher education attainment from other countries might be applied here, in the United States. In the fall, we will explore what successful minority-serving institutions can teach institutions with growing minority student populations.

All of these steps reflect Lumina’s effort to meet a dual challenge: to accelerate progress so that more Americans gain access to a high-quality postsecondary education and to ensure that what students learn aligns with the knowledge, skills and ability to function in a rapidly changing global economy and society.

The sheer number of jobs that require postsecondary education has doubled since the 1970s. Employers’ demands for workers with better than a high school diploma will only continue to grow, straining our capacity to produce enough well-educated workers. As Baby Boomers retire, demographic trends suggest our national economy will depend increasingly on minorities, working adults, first-generation college-goers and students from low-income families who struggle to afford — and succeed in — college.

It’s also clear that we have significant, persistent concerns with equity in our nation. The gap between Americans with college degrees and Americans without college degrees is wide. And it’s getting wider. As I said at the outset of these remarks, this is a complex, national problem that requires a comprehensive, national response. We all must mind the gap. The process of preparing students for an education beyond high school, getting them into college and helping them stay through graduation is essential to our collective well-being. And this is especially true for traditionally underserved students — those in groups that represent a rapidly growing percentage of the nation’s population. Closing the achievement gap isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also the smart thing to do. As I like to say about the work we all share: It’s not just nice … it’s necessary. In fact, if we don’t take bold, immediate steps to expand educational opportunity for all Americans, we increasingly risk a reduced standard of living and a weakened society.

As fellow education grantmakers, you certainly understand these issues and appreciate my sense of urgency. I hope my talk today has proved helpful — if only to encourage your own boldness as we work together to change things for the better.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today — and I look forward to your questions.