Skepticism over starting fresh

by Joe Nathan, 3/22/08 • How were things like cars, computers, and cell phones created? They were developed by people who started over, questioning current assumptions. Inventors of the automobile did not just trying to develop a stronger horse to pull a wagon. I mention this because of some responses to a recent column I wrote, describing the possibilities of UMORE Park, a “new community” that the University of Minnesota will create in the Rosemount area over the next twenty five years.

Some respondents were skeptical. One wrote in part,

“I am willing to be convinced this is a good idea, but I am highly skeptical that this project will ever be anything but a burden on Minnesota taxpayers. And as a land owner near the UMore Park, and am very concerned about the state/U screwing with the marketplace. Sell the land. Preserve the land. But save us from unaccountable government employees messing in the real world.”

This person continued, “Planned communities are a dime a dozen and the examples the U cites in B.C. and Stapleton are not the social science laboratories that the UMore plan suggests they want to engage in. 12 square miles is a pretty big lab rat maze.”

Listening to thoughtful critics, such as this person, is important. Here ‘s a quick example. When Minnesota adopted the Post-Secondary Enrollment Options Act (PSEO) some years ago, the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) was strongly opposed.

The following year, MSBA, while still opposed overall to the legislation, noticed that a few students did not seem to understand the consequences of failing a college class via PSEO. Apparently some students did not understand that if they took an English class at college, instead of in high school, and failed it, they might not graduate on time.

So MSBA suggested that PSEO participants read and sign a form saying that that they understood that failing to pass a PSEO college course might delay their high school graduation. It was a good suggestion, even though from a strong critic of the program. More than 110,000 students have used PSEO, with more than 90% of respondents in several studies saying they would do it again.

The UMORE Park critic makes a fair point that some “planned communities” have not worked out as well as hoped. The same could be said for many other pioneering efforts. Thomas Edison reportedly tried hundreds of approaches before developing a successful light bulb. New does not guarantee better.

But progress comes about in part from exploration and experimentation. That’s how new products such as those mentioned above are created.

Yes, the University of Minnesota needs to be careful. In fact, the UMORE part project is intended to help generate funds for the University. This could help broaden our financial base, which would be good news for taxpayers.

Not every new idea is a good one. Pessimists and skeptics play an important role. But thoughtful openness and optimism help move the world ahead. That’s what we’re trying with UMORE Park.

Joe Nathan directs the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute.