CCL Home > About CCL > President and CEO
This article was previously published in Embassy Times, in August 2010.
On August 30, an important step was taken in the ongoing development and strengthening of the European Union. On that day, the results of the first European Lifelong Learning Indicators (ELLI) Index were published by the German foundation that supported the work; and the findings were disseminated through the widely read magazine Der Spiegel.
The ELLI Index was inspired by the Composite Learning Index (CLI), developed in Canada by the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL); and its methodology mirrored that used by CCL annually over the past five years.
Publication of the ELLI Index constitutes a European milestone because it represents tangibly a growing international understanding that education and learning are no longer represented mainly by what goes on in classrooms throughout the world. There is recognition that learning in the home, in the community and in the workplace is equally important. The fact that EU member states will now have access to equivalent information on the progress of lifelong learning in their respective countries means that they can compare and contrast among countries, and thereby improve learning conditions across the continent.
The significance of ELLI or CLI resides in their ability to measure skills and learning. There is no doubt that these are linked inextricably to higher productivity, innovation and economic growth. For individuals, education and training have the potential to return substantial benefits, including better wages and satisfaction, fewer periods of unemployment, and improved health and quality of life.
It was in this spirit of ascertaining our present performance as a catalyst to propel Canada to future progress that CCL published in August a “stock-taking” of lifelong learning in this country from 2005 to 2010. As in any field of human endeavour, serious intent to improve in learning demands rigorous, regular and honest assessment of advances made and not made over a defined period of time. That is why schools employ report cards.
Perhaps the most notable point made in our stock-taking of Canada’s quinquennial learning experience: past results do not guarantee future success. The fundamental issue for this country is whether Canada is establishing conditions for future international competitiveness in knowledge and learning. Is Canada making the progress in lifelong learning that will differentiate societies that flourish from those that flounder?
Like other countries, Canada is complex and sometimes subject to contradictory tendencies. We found that, in education broadly, this complexity expresses itself in a series of curious paradoxes. We discovered also that the picture of learning in Canada appears much less rosy when we dig beneath the surface.
For example: we know the critical nature of early childhood education and development but we fail to act on that knowledge. Canadian secondary school students are internationally competitive in key subject areas, but are not holding the lead. Post-secondary participation and attainment rates are high but adult literacy levels are low. Canadians acknowledge the crucial nature of adult learning; yet employer offers of workplace training are scant and participation of employees is low.
Generally, Canadians everywhere are united in valuing learning highly; yet we are falling far short of our potential.
In more specific terms, we concluded that the strongest features of Canadian learning are found in the equitable nature of our public school systems, including positive integration of immigrants; our high and sustained expenditures on education (well above the OECD average), reflective of a strong education ethic throughout the country (see table); and our high participation rates in post-secondary education.
Combined public and private expenditures on education, by level of education, Canada, 1997–1998 to 2004–2005 (2001 constant dollars)
Counterbalancing the positives are the negatives. Low investment in early-childhood learning, together with poor analysis of quality on offer. Community-learning opportunities and access reduced by urban sprawl. Poor performance in workplace-skills development and in investments in research that facilitate innovation and creativity. In respect of these latter issues, foreign domination and ownership of almost the totality of large Canadian industries militates against private-sector investment in these two crucial drivers of productivity and prosperity. When industry is so utterly dependent on foreign capital, Canadians should not be surprised that companies refuse to support Canadian-based innovation or transferable skills, and that they will expend only on that minimum which is required for local activities.
To be quite clear: in a “rentier economy”, in which large business is totally dominated by foreign interests, the private sector will never invest sufficiently in research and development to sustain an innovative economy. Nor will it invest sufficiently in workplace education and training to enhance productivity of its workforce. A penalty for Canada in taking this economic road is that it is condemned to an uncompetitive fate, unless it is prepared to make up with public funds the shortfall in private investment in training and research.
This means that more tax money will need to go to university research, in place of the relatively small private-sector investment. Similarly, tax payers through their governments are obliged to provide substantial direct or indirect subsidies to induce the private sector to offer adequate upgrading of essential skills to employees.
The alternative is declining competitiveness, reduced opportunities for individuals and, eventually, curtailed standard of living.
Weaknesses are clear in adult literacy and in post-secondary disciplines like science and engineering that are also critical elements for innovativeness and productivity.
The principal impediment to progress in Canadian learning, however, is not specific to a particular phase of learning. Nor is it to be found in amounts invested at any level.
The Achilles heel of Canadian learning is directly related to lack of coherence, cohesion and co-operation, especially between levels of government. Even though Canada is unique in possessing no national ministry of education, and no legal framework governing learning, the European Union has shown that it should still be possible to integrate most forms of training and education among participating states, such that learners are both mobile and acquire skills at the highest standard.
Canadian incoherence was not a critical shortcoming before the era of globalized competition. Now, however, national cohesion is a prerequisite for competitive success in any country other than the United States.
The EU has established a number of transnational goals in learning. By contrast, Canada has not set, through public discourse and policy, a single measurable goal in any aspect of education. It resembles a pupil without a report card or house without a foundation.
CCL’s report Taking Stock of Lifelong Learning in Canada (2005-2010): Progress or Complacency?serves to remedy this by exposing the weaknesses in Canada’s learning foundation. It will take a serious renovation effort to enable Canada to withstand the stark challenges that face this country in maintaining a prosperous and robust place in the world.
Paul Cappon President & CEO Canadian Council on Learning
Top