Education, information

This was a busy week for those interested in education. The Conference Board convened its annual PSE Summit, HEQCO held a conference on apprenticeships, and the Society of College and University Planning convened to discuss PSE planning, including physical infrastructure and programs. Of these I was unable to attend the HEQCO, though I have been told it was very good and featured excellent in depth discussion on important issues regarding skills, the skilled trades and the apprenticeship systems in Canada and elsewhere. Also related is a recent conference I attended at Simon Fraser University on Innovations in Undergraduate Learning.

The PSE Summit was presaged by a workshop on Monday held at Ryerson University's Digital Media Zone on "Rethinking the PSE Institution." It was a good discussion on how PSE can and should adjust to the changing world around us. The DMZ was held as an example of this, and rightly so. My read on the DMZ is that it is taking innovation and entrepreneurship and explicitly teaching this in a more competency based learning framework. It works because it is what the world needs, and what student (for the most part) are seeking - relevance of their education.

Relevance is a defining feature of much of the discussion on education, and as well it should be. I've quoted John Godfrey here before: "The goal of education is to make people privately happy and publicly useful." Yet while most people will agree with this, there is still a sharp demarcation between education as a way to better oneself versus education for gaining skills to get a job. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. Education is always both transactional and transformative. We should be focused on outcomes-based education wherein students are told up front what skills and knowledge they will gain from a course or program. This enables students to see themselves on a career trajectory while we instil values congruent with our society. While there are those in the university and college sectors who eschew anything that remotely sounds like practicality, we ignore this at our peril. To these I say: Show me the student who does not want a job. That student does not exist.

That said, we should of course always encourage learning within or learning programs. This means recognizing, as one PSE Summit presenter said (quoting Alvin Toffler), "The illiterate of the 21st Century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn." Learning how to learn is an essential component of what we need to teach in order to future proof our economy. This creates resilience. It is a defining feature of those innovation skills I've termed innovation literacy. If the pace of technological change ushers in new forms of learning (about and with new technologies, for example), then the pace of credentialing similarly needs to be accelerated and adapted (IBM's M Mindel). In short, not only are there new competencies and skills associated with innovation as J. Salmi put it, these lead to the development of learning models such as what Ryerson's president Sheldon Levy has called zone learning, which is just "an updated form of co-op."

University of Toronto president Emeritus Robert Birgeneau gave one of the better keynotes at the PSE Summit with an overview of the California system. He described, among other things, the excellent articulation that defines credential laddering in the California PSE system (a real "system" I would point out, unlike Canada's many and competing systems). Most tellingly, he also went into detail about the new master education plan California is creating, in which there are community colleges, state universities and large, research universities, which are logically placed in a per capita allocation. To put this another way, Birgeneau pointed out that, if Canada were to structure PSE this way, Ontario would have 5 doctoral granting research-intensive schools, Quebec 3, BC and Alberta 2, etc. and create pathways among these. It reminded me of the U15 proposal for research funding, which is a good way to ensure that we can fund appropriately our best chances for global research excellence. This recognizes that we cannot continue to support everything and anything and everyone to be global research leaders. We have to pick winners. And we need an education system that serves the needs of the research pipeline an the development of human capital (read: potential): colleges, polytechnics and universities, both those that are undergraduate focused and those that are research intensive. Sooner or later this will come to pass for sheer economics. We cannot afford duplication in either credentialing or research intensity.

And so we end where we begin, in the need to focus on the development of a system (education and research) that works together, and provides students with outcomes and pathways throughout lives and careers. These issues arose at the SCUP conference and the SFU symposium. At SCUP there was a focus on planning and building physical spaces to reflect new learning, but also on program prioritization. Engaging in these sorts of exercises forces us to confront the cold reality of relative value of certain programs and types of education. This is as it should be. At SFU, there was a lot of discussion about outcomes amidst some fear that outcomes will restrict the ends of pedagogy, which to some is simply "crating good citizens." A noble goal, to be sure, but the majority of these citizens (95% according to one speaker) are entering universities to get a job and a career.

Those who eschew outcomes based learning I would liken to those who believe in magic. The students enter the educational institution, take some courses, and are magically transformed into a good citizen. To state what skills someone will learn from a given program or course disrupts this magical thinking, pulling back the curtain to lay bare the mechanisms of learning. The course or program is a black box in which magical things happen that are ineffable. This is alchemy, a transmutation that cannot be rendered explicit for fear of disrupting the professorial power to conjure this transformation.

To be fair it is difficult to render everything explicit. But we must be honest with ourselves and our students about what they will gain for their investments, and for those investments of public money we put into education. For if Canada tops the OECD in the percent of population with a tertiary education, yet there is still a mismatch in skills and gaps in career readiness, then there is a disconnect in the publicly-funded system and the needs of the private sector, where the majority of jobs are, in addition to the private needs of the individual to lead a fulfilling life as a participating citizen. This may simply be a communication gap (which is the rationale behind our innovation literacy badging program). And there are good models of public+private partnerships for education and research.

The private and public goals of education are complementary. The discussions held this week at these various venues has shown that there is great potential for the PSE system in Canada. There are good models at home and abroad that can shine a light on how we might reimagine our PSE systems, and make of them a true system.

Demand driven innovation and the politics of research

Canada needs excellence in its capacity for basic research, applied research, and experimental development. These are the three elements through which we conduct and measure the R&D or S&T pipeline, from idea through to invoice, according to the Frascati Manual.

Successive expert panels and reports have shown Canada to have an excellent basic research capacity, but a lacklustre innovation and business R&D capacity. Here are a couple of op-eds that talk about these issues: one from the Globe and Mail featuring an international partnership on basic research, and the second from Polytechnics Canada CEO Nobina Robinson in the Hill Times talking about applied research. Both of these have in common a recognition that we have an excellent basic research system in place, and this is necessary for the full functioning of applied research and the innovation channel this implies.

But pushing harder on the research button is not going to change things. This requires specific policy and effort - to foster greater applicability of our basic research capacity by engaging partnerships, both within the academic world (among colleges, polytechnics and universities together), and with firms. As Robinson points out, "innovation is not purely a scientific activity - it is an economic one." And so while I applaud and support our national efforts to funnel more money into science and R&D, let's temper this with economic rationalism as we realize that we do not have the GDP to support unfettered inquiry into anything and everything. Regrettably, budgets require making hard choices. And that's no zombie idea.

College Research Rankings: The Measures That Matter

GBC was pleased to ‎learn this week that we were ranked #3 in college research funding according to the Research Infosource top research colleges report released this week. Congratulations to BCIT and NAIT for achieving #1 and #2 respectively.

This is a great boon for BCIT as they are celebrating 50 years of education and 25 years of applied research this year.‎ I look forward to celebrating in November as BCIT hosts the annual Polytechnics Canada student applied research showcase. It is good to note that seven of the top 10 are Polytechnics Canada members, a testament to the strong applied research focus these organizations have taken as a measure of differentiation.

As good as the research funding rankings and the somewhat arbitrary research intensity figure are (research intensity=amount of money spent per faculty engaged) these are not the real measure of value of college and polytechnic applied research. The real story is alluded to in the data Research Infosource has compiled on numbers of partners and projects in this snapshot. Algonquin College tops the list on numbers of partnerships and projects, with BCIT, Sheridan and NAIT (along with George Brown College in second place in both) rounding out the top three in each category. 

This is a stronger measure because it speaks to reach and potential of what we do in terms of industry partner engagement and (missing from the list) student engagement. For example, on the Polytechnics Canada fact sheet you can see that the 11 members did the following research activity in 2013-14:

• 1,789 Companies/clients serviced by applied research offices
• 1,774 Applied research projects active and completed 
• 946 Prototypes developed 
• 11,927 Students engaged in applied research activity

Similarly, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, now called Colleges and Institutes Canada, has data for applied research activity in its members (which includes all of the Polytechnics Canada members, so these data are inclusive of those above) that show "In 2011-12, more than 24,000 college students and 1,700 faculty and staff collaborated with 4,586 companies across 524 research areas."

Also not captured here is the industry spend in each of these institutions Very often, given the way in which college and polytechnic applied research works, funding support pays for 50% of the costs associated with a project. This leveraged funding component provide a more nuanced view of the value based on the system capacity. A rough calculation to simply double the awarded funding would give a ballpark figure, though this is funding awarded, not funding dispersed; dispersed funding is a better measure of a particular organization's capacity because it shows the spend rate which is more easily matched to projects and partners to get a sense of scale. Including the numbers of students and the outcomes of the work (such as prototypes and products delivered to markets) enables us to start to infer impact. This impact is necessarily linked to research funding, but research funding is not a sole determinant of the outcomes capacity as it exists.

This starts to give us a more robust picture of the value - to firms, to students, colleges and polytechnics and the public - at the value for why we do this important work: to help firms to innovate while training the next generation of innovators. For the real value here is what exists in our partnerships with Canadian industry - and here I include cultural, community and corporate partnerships. Alex Usher has a good post about the relationship of firms to the research endeavour. Ignoring this connection, and the value of graduates equipped with innovation literacy in the economy broadly, are the outcomes that we should be tracking in order to better align the college and polytechnic applied research capacity with the social and economic needs of the economy.

Kudos for Research Infosource for advancing these issues. I look forward to more conversation about how best to measure - and what to measure - the value of the applied research system now in full swing across the country.

Toronto Foundation launches Toronto Vital Signs 2014

Today marks the launch of the Toronto Vital Signs report, an in-depth look at the social and economic health of the region. As the message from Toronto Foundation CEO Rahul Bhardwaj and John Barford, Chair of the Board of Directors, makes clear, there is a lot to be proud of, yet a lot of work yet to do to ensure Toronto maintains a world class place to live and do business. The Toronto Star has a special section today which details the key messages, including how place determines success in the region.

George Brown College is proud to be the lead research partner for the Vital Signs report.

Skills, innovation, the economy

With much discussion of late over skills and the role of education, it is interesting to see Alex Usher's post today featuring a Venn diagram of skills employers need versus those that alumni wish they had. It reinforces the work we do on innovation literacy and the promotion of those skills required for job market - and economic - success.

A recent Conference Board of Canada report called The Bucks Stop Here: Trends in Income Inequality Between Generations paints part of the picture here as well. There is some good news in this report, including increased labour market participation and a narrowing of the wage gap for women, and I note that the report states "The rise in average incomes does suggest that younger workers still have opportunities to advance." There is also a call to increase productivity in the labour force, which is consistent with many reports that look at how our labour force compares to other countries. With increasing retirements – and a corresponding shrinking of the labour force – increasing productivity is key to helping shape a vibrant economy.

Issues that are raised here such as underemployment and skills mismatches are real and important to address. One way that George Brown College is addressing these issues is to focus on a tight linkage to industry need in our programs. And, our emphasis on innovation literacy and what are called "soft skills" - those skills such as team work, communication, and entrepreneurship – gives our graduates a leg up in the job market. In addition, our focus on experiential learning – providing the capacity to apply skills through courses, applied research projects and internships, all help students to learn skills and apply them.

The Conference Board report notes that "The critical issue that emerges is how to ensure that younger workers are able to put their knowledge and skills to use in ways that will drive their incomes up faster than we have seen over the past three decades. " This is a very important point. Our focus on providing students with experiential learning and encouraging students to demonstrate what they have learned through for example our new digital badges program helps students seeking employment to demonstrate what they have learned in their programs and how they have applied this learning to real world contexts. Investing in education is a good thing, but this investment needs context: is there a labour market demand for a chosen profession? And importantly, what is industry's role in investing? We know that Canadian industry does not invest in additional education and training to the level our international counterparts do for their employees, and this is something that we foster with our close links to industry through our program advisory committees, for example.

Our focus on soft skills, on innovation literacy and entrepreneurship, and on how our programs link to employment give our students the tools with which to build experience and to gain employment. Students hone these skills further through experiential learning such as applied research and learn how to articulate the skills and knowledge they have gained so employers will understand what they know and know how to do. This puts the emphasis on the agency of each individual student, who is encouraged to come to the College, learn from our industry-relevant programs, and then demonstrate these skills and knowledge. We provide the context and the tools, and the encouragement to learn, and earn, a living.

Innovation, funding, tax credits

Here's a link to good overview of some issues with the current Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SRED) tax credit regime. As I've noted earlier, there are some issues with how SRED works that are not in keeping with how R&D is conducted nor measured. As the Globe article posits, the Jenkins Panel has also recommended changes to the SRED program. While the SRED program has done a lot of companies a lot of good, it is skewed against the kind of market driven applied R&D that helps get new products introduced into markets. Overhauling SRED would be daunting to be sure, but anything that helps firms engage in R&D more directly should be welcome news.

Science, Technology, Students

In picking up the thread of research and development in Canada, there have been a few good articles of late that help frame the fall conversation. This will be particularly important as the federal government readies the release of its anticipated update to the S&T Strategy.

The Globe has a piece by economist Todd Hirsch on the lack of S&T investment by industry. This is not new news. Hirsch does do a good job of articulation what this may mean down the road for Canada's economy, especially when, as he notes, Canadian companies are "flush with cash." Partnering with a post-secondary institution such as a college, polytechnic or university can help industry to de-risk the R&D enterprise. This has been a staple of government support for R&D of late.

Of course there are those that decry this approach to R&D funding, saying that requiring industry partners will debase the pursuit of science. A recent Ottawa Citizen op-ed claims that governments are "starving" fundamental science research with the focus on industry engagement. Without wading too far into this, I wonder if a more nuanced approach is required? Certainly declining grant success rates is frustrating for anyone applying for funds. But fostering a greater national approach to partnering in research generally, and in this I include with industry, and among universities, colleges and polytechnics, both fosters greater academic and industry R&D productivity, while giving students better experience. I've made the point many times that engaging students in applied R&D with industry fosters innovation literacy. The point here is that, as CCA reports have outlined, we are excellent at many areas of basic research. I just think we don't have the GDP to support unfettered research into everything and so have to make choices. And health is likely a good one.

With the economic recovery perhaps not as good as we might hope, there is a couple of voices coalescing on the value of Canadian education. Both Mark Kingwell and Minister Jason Kenney have not dissimilar views. While the former lauds the value of Canadian universities such as the University of Toronto, Kenney goes a step further in seeking to leverage immigration specifically to attract and retain talent. Both underscore the value of our educational systems as being components of the larger productivity strategy that involves talent and R&D.

And this is a good segue into the Strategic Mandate Agreements that the Ontario government has recently required of all PSE institutions in the province. I've not yet had a chance to review these in detail and to compare and contrast them, but it will be interesting to see how our colleges, polytechnics and universities can work together to meet the needs of the labour market generally, for the economy of today and that of tomorrow.