Canadian Chamber of Commerce convenes roundtable on Talent for Innovation

Yesterday the Honourable Perrin Beatty convened the Toronto roundtable in this series, examining the important topic of what talent Canada needs for the innovation economy. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the Honourable John McCallum opened the session with remarks on the importance of immigration to the supply-side of talent for Canada - this is particularly important for a country where we need people to fill the growing demographic gap due to retirements. I made the point that international students - important to the national economy - are prevented from participating in entrepreneurship programs - let's hope this can be changed.

I joined Cisco's Rick Huijbregts, VP Innovation and Digital Transformation Lead, Cisco, Americas, Wendy Cukier, Vice President, Research and Innovation, Ryerson University, and Alex Parizeau, Managing Director, Ubisoft Toronto in providing remarks for the roundtable discussion.

The Chamber set the stage thus:
Talent for Innovation is our topic. Through this project, our central question is: How can Canada cultivate talent for innovation? We are preoccupied with business innovation (i.e. innovation within companies) and innovation that comes to market (and not on pure “science and technology”). During our project, we will explore three key sub-questions:

• What are the skills that foster innovation?
• Where and how do we cultivate innovation skills and talent?
• What can the federal government do?

We discussed many important topics, from the importance of generational change, to digital literacy, and main street entrepreneurship - fostering growth companies in all sectors of the economy, not just new technology. Diversity was an important theme - building on the initial discussion about the importance of immigration, but also encouraging women in STEM and other fields.

My remarks used Technology Readiness Levels as an example of the need for diversity and complementarity in skills, competencies and credentials. That is, if you are going from TRL 1 - where I have an idea to build a rocket - to TRL 9 - where I am actually launching that rocket - you require a team of multidisciplinary people who are educated at different level - from PhDs, to engineers, to technicians, marketers and beyond. When people from varied competencies/credentials work together there is a multiplier effect. This is the principle of ensuring that everyone - from across the credential spectrum - has innovation literacy. 

We need to focus on the skills Canada needs, but also the skills Canada wants - both transactional and transformative skills for the economy and civil society. A focus on Work Integrated Learning is essential here - both as a component of all undergraduate programming, but also as a model for integrating and socializing youth into careers. This latter point fits well into the federal government's initiative to reboot a Katimavik 2.0 - a kind of youth internship for a gap year between secondary and tertiary education. The government could offer tax incentives to businesses who participate, pay a stipend to youth to participate in social and economic nation building while trying out a potential career. This could be a way to avoid the $500-600M in student loan defaults per year, by enabling students to find a career, and so educational path, that suits their interests and aptitudes well.

Above all an integrated approach to fostering education for innovation is required. The Chamber should be applauded for adding its voice to this Canadian imperative.

Industry 4.0 and the Factory of the Future

In The future of manufacturing, revealed in an Ontario budget line item we have a good overview of the "Advanced Manufacturing Consortium being formed between McMaster University in Hamilton, Western University in London and the University of Waterloo... a $35-million, five-year commitment" announced in last week's Ontario budget. The piece is interesting in that it talks about the Internet of Things (IoT or Internet of Everything as Cisco puts it) and the so-called fourth industrial revolution. But what is distinctly lacking here is a more complete picture of the inputs into what the factory of the future entails. By this I mean the inclusion of colleges and polytechnics and industry. 

Canada's manufacturing capacity is in need of a boost - to modernize and to realize a place in the economy of the future that the IoT entails. Our launch over a year ago of the Design Centre for the Smart Economy is one way in which we are active in this area. And while it is great that the Ontario government is seeding investment at this trio of leading universities, let's hope that as the centre gets put into action that it provides a conduit for the complementary expertise needed from across the skills and research continuum.

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.

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.

Recognizing innovation literacy with badges

Since the launch of our innovation literacy digital badges I've received numerous inquiries regarding the program, particularly since the story about our badging program appeared in Academica. I thought it would be useful to provide an overview the the program, and why we have launched it and what we hope it means to our students and graduates.

The premise of the program is that it is important to acknowledge the acquisition of skills students gain as a result of working on applied research projects conducted with industry and community partners.  These innovation literacy skills are ancillary to the technical and other skills students gain in our academic programs.

The foundational premise is that these innovation literacy skills are acquired through this applied research work. The second premise is that it is important to render these skills visible to students. That is, we must ensure that students can see and acknowledge that they have gained skills pertinent to innovation. We can tell students they have gained these skills, and most can articulate that they have gained these skills, but it is important to render explicit the tacit assumptions of skills acquisition in order to complete the learning and reinforce the value of innovation literacy. Third, it is important to make this skill acquisition visible. Enter the digital badge.

Badges are an increasingly popular way for students to show to potential employers how they have gained skills and experiences that do not normally appear on an official transcript. They can be displayed on an e-portfolio or co-curricular record, or on a social media profile such as LinkedIn or Facebook. The important thing is that badges are explicit recognition of skills that are gained through experiential learning.

For the past few years the team at George Brown College has been working to foster innovation literacy skills in our graduates that work on applied research. We have developed ways to measure this longitudinally, and this work is in progress. In the meantime we felt it important to take steps to ensure graduates understand what innovation means, and how their applied research experience enables them to take a proactive role in fostering innovation within the broader world of work they enter upon graduation.  It is important to demystify innovation, as in so doing we derisk it for the economy broadly. By ensuring that all graduates can achieve some understanding of innovation and how they can participate in it, we foster a better chance of future productivity. Key here is recognition of informal learning and its relationship to formal learning.

I've written earlier about the need for a more national approach to outcomes based learning that can account for both formal and informal learning. Such a "learning passport" system would enhance the linkages between learning and life (work), something colleges and polytechnics assume as part of our mandate. This explicit connection need not solely be focused on the transactional acquisition of skills of immediate use. For when we teach skills we also teach how to learn, and learning how to learn is a skill that fosters resilience and the transformational effects of education.

George Brown College Excellence in Research and Innovation digital badge

Polytechnics Canada Convenes Applied Research Showcase this week at SAIT

The Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) this week is the host for the annual Polytechnics Canada Applied Research Showcase.

The event is presented by CISCO, and the theme of this year is "Innovation: Going the Distance."
Featured speakers at this year's event include The Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of State for Science and Technology, The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, and The Honourable Michelle Rempel, Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

Other highlights include 11 student competing teams, Janet Walden the President of NSERC, and an outstanding set of college leaders in industry innovation. The focus is on college-university-industry collaboration as a go forward priority, and a demonstration of how complementary innovation intermediaries can work together to create jobs and wealth in the economy, all while equipping students with the innovation skills needed to foster created productivity in the economy.

Polytechnics Canada: Propelling business innovation; Creating jobs for tomorrow.

Skills, Education and the Innovation Economy

The Conference Board of Canada is convening Skills and Post-Secondary Education Summit 2013: Developing the Talent We Need for a Competitive Nation yesterday and today. The agenda yesterday featured some excellent discussions, particularly international examples of education as linked explicitly to the needs of the economy. Finland, Germany, Switzerland, the UK and Australia were featured, and some strong themes emerged. These include educational instrumentality - these countries have not been afraid to be explicit in directing the aims of education to the needs of the economy, nor in streaming students at a young age into particular programs. This includes the tactical acquisition of specific skills as well as strategic social skills for citizenship.

The approach by these countries is an approach that contrasts to the Canadian system - or rather systems - in which we have a strong college and polytechnic sector explicitly linked to the needs of the economy, and a university sector that is not so much (other than professional faculties). This is changing, and I am glad to see the universities start to pay attention to the need to define and articulate what skills students emerge with from any program. BUt our somewhat libertarian view in Canada is defined by a bias toward a degree as being the sole ticket to social and economic prosperity, and we seem disinclined to tell anyone that there are other, often better options, commensurate with skill and aptitude.

We err when we focus specifically on a university degree as the main driver of skills, a point made in some of the media at the summit. Of course a university degree is a good thing - as is a college or polytechnic degree, apprenticeship ticket, diploma, or graduate certificate. When we focus only on degrees we ignore the reality that these are not always connected to the economy - nor should they always be. But a focus on degrees, as evident in some of the program material, is at odds with the concomitant focus on the skilled trades, as well as the gamut of credentials that are directly plugged into the needs of the economy. In short, we have a supply side system, when what we need is a demand driven model. If this sounds familiar, it is: this is exactly the issue the Council of Canadian Academies report "Paradox Lost" states we have with our approach to R&D.

What we in Canada need is a more balanced approach to demand driven economy (for both education and research), as well as an explicit recognition (as in Australia among others) that socio-economic balance is lost when a country is weighted too far on supply.  For our part, we would do well to speak about the credentials needed for a given occupation, rather than simply focus on bland statements like a degree being the pathway to success. I've made this point before, and it bears repeating, for we do ourselves a disservice when we pander to simple ideology around the supply of credentials when this is dislocated from demand and the means of production in the economy.

Australia has a demand driven model including a national accreditation and quality framework that shows how credential work together. The Swiss model, like the German and the Finnish models, is highly prescriptive and instrumental, but is also defined by a "high degree of permeability," meaning that even when students are streamed at a young age into particular programs, there is the ability for mobility throughout credentials, occupations and life spans.

Of particular note is Finland, with its "human-centric, equal opportunity" model that is focused on practice-based and open innovation. The Finns seem to have figured out that practice-based innovation accounts for 96% of economic growth, with science and technology innovation the other 4%, according to the EU. They strive for a balance between knowing, acting and being - all of these EU countries focus on a balance between professional skills and citizenship and life skills. Education and research are closely coupled with industry, have well defined occupation specific skills sets, link well with industry sector councils, connect to international contexts, and are oriented toward strong citizenship and civic participation.

Last month the online journal Technology Innovation Management Review published an article I wrote on Measuring Innovation Skills Acquired by College and Polytechnic Students through Applied Research. The piece is based on the work many of us in the applied research sector are engaged in, and articulates a way to measure outcomes related to our support of business innovation through applied research. The focus here is on skills, and linking these explicitly to the activities of applied research, with potential downstream effects in firms that are supported by college and polytechnic applied research, but also those that employ graduates with innovation literacy. Our team is working on this as part of a larger project; watch this space for more in the months to come.

Board of Trade cluster strategy launched

Last week I had the good fortune to attend the launch of the Toronto Region Board of Trade (TRBOT) cluster strategy. Over two days, two clusters were launched - one on the food and beverage industry and the other on life sciences.

The TRBOT's cluster strategy was kicked off last year when Michael Porter came to speak about the value of clusters. The focus of clusters is to collaborate to compete as a region  and the two events brought together leaders from business, academia and government to really put some shape around what actions and next steps are necessary in order to move the region's cluster development forward.

Both the food and beverage and the life sciences clusters are large economic development engines in the region, and we have the elements to make these even more successful in terms of industry, academic/skills training, and support from a range of state and nonstate actors. The Toronto Region Board of Trade's leadership in formulating cluster strategies and action plans to move the region forward is significant, and well timed. A more proactive linking of business R&D, skills training and education and new technology adoption in industry are the key drivers of productivity and innovation  By getting all the players together to work together, the TRBOT has opened up a conversation that dovetails with the focus on the recent federal budget - to encourage more public-private R&D partnerships, a better linkage of skills training with industry, and the value of new technology to drive innovation and productivity.  I am looking forward to learning more - and participating - in growing the region's clusters, and I encourage all to contact the TRBOT to learn how you can get involved in this exciting and worthwhile initiative.

Budget 2013: A glass half full

Budget 2013 is an austerity budget, but one that contains some very positive news for colleges and polytechnics. Read our press release: George Brown College ready to deliver on federal budget initiatives aimed at bridging skills mismatch.

Several key recommendations from Polytechnics Canada were contained in the budget, including an increase to the College and Community Innovation Program funding, the inclusion of college undergraduate students in the NSERC Industrial Undergraduate Student Research Awards program, apprenticeship requirements for federal procurement, and the industry innovation vouchers pilot program as part of IRAP (“credit notes to help pay for research, technology and business development services at universities, colleges and other non-profit research institutions of their choice”). Funds for the Canada Foundation for Innovation for research infrastructure and a renewal of FEDDEV Ontario are good news items - George Brown College is building the Green Building Centre, a business accelerator and entrepreneurship centre for green construction and smart buildings, with support from FEDDEV. Part of the funding to FEDDEV will go to the new Advanced Manufacturing Fund, which represents strong potential for retooling the manufacturing industries, for example via the potential for disruptive change with new technologies like 3D printing.

A big part of the budget is the focus on skills and the new Canada Jobs Fund. A potentially contentious issue as it means renegotiating the Labour Market Agreements, the Canada Job Fund will require industry and the provinces to co-invest in skills training. It is well known that Canadian industry does not invest in skills training as much as it should. As reported in the Globe and Mail, Don Drummond and Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa are optimistic about the new program.

More analysis is needed, of course, and not everyone is happy with yesterday's budget, but the bottom line here for applied research and skills training is that we are seeing an emphasis on instrumentality and industry: directing education and research toward specific aims of increasing industry engagement and investment. These are essential to improving productivity and innovation in the country.

The focus on skills and innovation is a positive theme, and with the incremental increases to applied research funding we have strong potential for increasing the kinds of experiential learning and innovation skills acquisition that is a hallmark of George Brown College and polytechnic education. The federal government has given educational institutions, industry and individuals tools with which to increase innovation and productivity. It is up to us to pick up those tools and build a better future.

#skillsarewherethepuckisgoing

On skills, mismatched or otherwise

Speculation about Budget 2013 is rife with the premise of skills taking a front and centre approach in the federal government's agenda. Reports such as Flaherty to make skills training a budget focus, How to solve problem of jobs without people and people without jobs?, and Federal budget 2013: Skills training a top priority, businesses tell Flaherty show that the government is headed in the right direction in terms of ensuring that the economy has the right people with the right skills in the right places. While some may say that the skills shortage/mismatch is a misnomer, there can be no denying that Canada needs to do more to get the skills mix right. Of course the argument is complex, and it is not as easy as saying we need this type of education over that type of education. Outgoing University of Toronto president David Naylor makes these points in a recent Empire Club address, reinforcing as he does the need for basic research over applied. This is a laudable point, and one to be expected from Canada's largest research university (full disclosure: I am a proud alumni of UofT). He underscores this by emphasizing the need for the private sector to step up its R&D investment. But the most important message he imparts is the need "to promote shared programming between universities and colleges," including the good point that colleges are the finishing school for those with undergraduate degrees who want to get vocational skills relevant to the economy. The take away message here is that we need to play to our strengths, in education and research, in order to work together to solve our shared productivity and innovation problems. Putting skills front and centre, and to this I would relate the need for more outcomes based education in all post secondary education programs, is exactly the right thing to do in promoting effective wayfinding for the "K-to-work journey."

#skillsarewherethepuckisgoing

Education and the economy

Todd Hirsch has a good piece in today's Globe and Mail about the relationship between the cost and value of education. This is an increasingly important topic with education budget cuts now hitting five provinces and student groups protesting about the cost of education, even while sector councils decry the lack of highly qualified and skilled personnel throughout the economy.

I've made the comment before that skills are where the puck is going, and by this I mean that colleges are well positioned to lead a seismic shift in education. Universities are now starting to speak about outcomes based education - this has been the purview of colleges all along. This is a very positive shift in thinking that will enable Canada to place the value of education on what it can do for social and economic outcomes, to make "people privately happy, and publicly useful." And while there will always be those programs that eschew labour market realities, the very simple fact of colleges' historical bias toward outcomes and a focus on skills lends considerable weight to the value of education.

George Brown College is an enabler of the innovation economy because we focus on skills - hard and soft - and our graduates gain employment because we are focused on offering instrumental education. Our focus on a combination of vocational education and academic excellence ensures that we help the economy have the right people with the right skills for the right jobs in the right place and time. The academic versus vocational debate is a false dichotomy that is detrimental to our economic (and social) future, insofar as it means that we then turn away from the practical in favour of the theoretical. The well worn path of Canadian low productivity and innovation - and here I would include the fact that we do not realize the benefits of our basic research - is part of this conundrum. We seem to prefer the thinking over doing, privileging the prima facie over application, perhaps because we are conscious of our history as "hewers of wood, drawers of water." 

College education and  research is applied - and unabashedly so - and our celebration of this puts us at the forefront on an ascending curve that is driving change in the way the country thinks about addressing long standing economic ills. We are focused on what the economy needs, and what employers want: people with the skills to do the jobs of today and tomorrow. This includes a range of skills from apprenticeships in the skilled trades to innovation literacy throughout the continuum of academic programs.

The explicit mandate for colleges in Ontario is to ensure that graduates are prepared for the workforce. According to the Framework for Programs of Instruction in the Minister’s Binding Policy Directive:

The Act identifies the colleges’ objects or mandate to offer a comprehensive program of career-oriented, postsecondary education and training that:

• assists individuals in finding and keeping employment; 
• meets the needs of employers and the changing work environment: and,
• supports the economic and social development of their local and diverse communities.

This is an explicitly instrumental mandate. The OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training Learning for Jobs report offers some useful instruction here relevant to some of the policy prescriptions that Polytechnics Canada for example has recently put out. We need to celebrate this instrumentality, in education and research, and applaud any movement toward more outcomes-based education, as this will let us articulate the value of education to the needs of the economy.

#skillsarewherethepuckisgoing

Education n+1

Today's Globe and Mail has an informative piece by Kevin Lynch, who, in Education 2.0, outlines views that education needs a focus on outcomes, and should include experiential learning. He offers a helpful insight that "The public education system is still organized around separate K-to-12 systems, community college systems and university systems, but the student is really engaged in a 'K-to-work' journey." Lynch quotes Rick Miner's work on "people without jobs and jobs without people" as indicative of the looming skills gap and skills shortage, something Nobina Robinson pointed out last week in her Globe op-ed. This is the kind of reasoned approach we need in Canada: orienting our education system to outcomes relevant to the needs of the economy (social, economic), and acknowledging the span of education  that serves this purpose. Colleges and polytechnics have been promoting the value of outcomes-based and experiential learning as important drivers of the economy. When innovation is linked to learning outcomes and industry needs (for education and applied research), we have a better chance of future proofing our productivity.

Fixing the brain drain requires the right skills

Polytechnics Canada CEO Nobina Robinson has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail that outlines important issues for the Canadian economy. In Business must share responsibility for shortage of skilled workers, Robinson provides a fresh perspective on the "brain drain" and what key steps Canada needs to take to solve our looking skills shortage. The piece follows on the Globe front page story on the government's intent to do something about apprenticeship and the skills issues we are grappling with - issues that have deep impacts on the economy. I was especially interested to read about the comparison to the German model. There are some interesting links to labour market preparation, economic productivity, and innovation that emerge from the German system of linking education to the world of work, and linking applied research to the needs of industry.

There are two fronts here:
1. The apprenticeship issue, and the relationship to the skills gap/mismatch in the economy; and
2. The general need to encourage the development of innovation skills, with a commensurate focus on outcomes based education, where this is applicable.

As I said earlier, innovation is where the puck is; skills are where the puck is going.

#skillsarewherethepuckisgoing