CCL Home > Newsroom > Speeches
I am delighted to have this opportunity to participate in “Post-Secondary Education – At the Crossroads.” I want to congratulate Public Interest Alberta for organizing this conference – and to thank all of you for investing a weekend in this discussion of ways to strengthen post-secondary education.
I understand that this conference continues the work that PIA began last fall when it conducted eight public hearings in communities across the province. In the course of those deliberations, four themes emerged – themes that were outlined in Public Interest Alberta’s post-secondary education report card:
These are issues that our organization, the Canadian Council on Learning, is examining. They are issues discussed in all provinces, as each provincial government seeks the best way of addressing how to build a knowledge society with the levers available within their jurisdictions. They are issues, in fact, discussed by people around the world who are concerned about the future of post-secondary education.
Let me then, put before you some ways in which these challenges are being addressed in a larger international context.
I want to outline three aspects of the issues which unite both developed and developing countries in reforming and enhancing their post-secondary systems.
First there is a necessary balance among the various purposes and dimensions of learning. The second is the emergence of learner driven education. The third is the alignment of national systems of post-secondary education with national objectives.
I will then attempt to articulate what I think is peculiar about Canada’s post-secondary education challenge, and the potential of Canadian Council on Learning in assisting us in meeting that challenge.
One of the most influential assessments in the role of education in our society was presented by Jacques Delors in his commission’s report to UNESCO on education for the 21st century. Monsieur Delors described the four pillars of learning that would enable individuals to achieve their full potential:
How is this seemingly abstract four pillared Delors paradigm relevant to an Albertan gathering on the future of PSE?
Its relevance is to remind us that higher education is not only about productivity, innovation, and higher income. These are, of course laudable national and individual goals for PSE. But Delors’ concept formalizes that which we apprehend intuitively: all levels of education must support individual self-actualization as well as social cohesion. Our productivity has purposes beyond the accumulation of wealth.
And actually, with respect to the driving issue of prosperity, please take note of the following conclusion from the 2005 interim report of the UK Commission on Skills: “The model also shows that investing in basic literacy and numeracy skills gives us the biggest benefit, relative to cost. It shows that focusing on higher end skills provides the bigger boost to productivity compared to that of low skills, but that it has a smaller impact on employment and is most expensive to deliver.” That tells us that there exists congruence - not incompatibility or contradiction – between the societal goals of prosperity on one hand and equity and social wellbeing on the other.
Delors is relevant too because he posits that continuous learning supporting four dimensions is not only about formal education, it encompasses informal and non-formal leaning as well. Similarly, post-secondary education must link to informal and non-formal learning by offering students the requisite skills; and also because PSE institutions need to support these other forms of learning.
A second point related to the responsibility of PSE in the international context is accountability and responsiveness towards learners. There are good reasons for which the world is moving towards demand or learner driven education: the notion of lifelong learning. The emphasis on lifelong learning is in part the concept of education throughout the lifespan, from early childhood through adult and workplace education and training, the idea that learning occurs anytime and in many ways. The idea also that continuous learning is the key to individual development, social cohesion, and collective prosperity.
Lifelong learning is not only about the duration of learning across the lifespan; it implies also a paradigm shift from the supply side of education to the demand side. The supply side relates to the provision of formal education by the State or private providers and is in limited magnitude. The demand side drives non-formal education and informal learning; there is no perceived limit to provision because there is no limit to learning. Demand driven learning also implies greater accountability towards learners; diversity and provision in response to learners’ demands; greater weight given to employability; meeting needs of adult learners; service to society.
This requires financing lifelong learning throughout the lifecycle, both by the State and the individual, as well as by institutions, employers, etc.
This also requires systemic change: we must ensure that the foundations for lifelong learning are present: strong initial education, career counselling, credit recognition and transfer, co-financing and workplace learning etc. Lifelong learning requires a full systematic approach. Each part of the system must be assessed and must be adequate.
The third element of international context that I wish to set before you has direct implications for Canada’s weaknesses; and that will address our own challenges.
Countries around the world are recognizing that post-secondary education is a key element which will distinguish successful societies from those which lag behind. The common denominator in the approach of comparator groups of countries – and federal partnerships like the European Union – is that they set national objectives, develop means to assess the achievement of those objectives, and monitor the success of their PSE systems in meeting those goals.
They have found ways to build a coherent, cohesive, approach to post-secondary learning. Canada has not.
We have no clearly articulated objectives to which PSE should respond and be assessed. We have very sparse national data on PSE. And we have no mechanism even to decide as a collectivity what those national goals might be. When I observe the approach of other federal states, like Australia, I may occasionally quarrel with the choice of pan-Australian priorities and objectives; but I have no doubt about their capacity to make those national choices.
As an example of the value of national objective setting, let me tell you about an international symposium that I attended last month on post-secondary education. This symposium attracted speakers from the OCED who represent diverse approaches and experiences. These countries included Finland, Australia, South Korea and Ireland. Their priorities for education reform varied, but each country approached the desired reforms methodically, consistently and coherently.
Each country sought to align its system of higher education with the goals of national progress, both in terms of the economic results of prosperity and innovation, and of elements of social well-being, such as social cohesion. Many countries align higher education reform with the needs of the labour market. Several examples we heard referred to the concept of a higher education system that would be more demand-centred – or learner driven – as a means of facilitating lifelong learning.
The common element was that each of the countries had clear goals and objectives. Leaders of the reforms put in place strategies, programs, and resources to achieve stated goals.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, each country had implemented a system of assessment, so they could tell where progress is being made. Some of the accountability frameworks went beyond process and input of funds and focussed on outcome indicators. And each participant country had put in place a national accountability framework, including public reporting of results.
I believe that this process of measuring and reporting results for post-secondary education has been a critical factor in enlisting widespread support in those countries for higher education. What gets measured gets done. And if you measure the impact of post-secondary education on a society, you have a powerful tool to enhance systems of higher education.
I’d like to take a moment to provide an overview of some of the specific strategies about which I heard.
South Korea has taken a very interesting approach to lifelong learning by creating an academic credit bank system. The system helps acknowledge the contribution of formal, informal and non-formal learning to lifelong learning. South Korea’s credit bank system requires partnerships between governments and partners. A centrally administered academic credit bank might not work in a country as decentralized as Canada, but perhaps we could adapt the concept. Perhaps we could create a learning passport that would be carried by individual learners and could include all of their learning experiences – formal, informal, and non-formal.
I believe that last night you heard from Peter MacMenamin, Deputy General Secretary of the Teachers' Union of Ireland. Ireland was of course one of the countries represented at the symposium, given the many innovative reforms they have implemented, including elimination of tuition fees.
In addition, Ireland has created a framework for interaction between universities and the government for accountability to society. This framework is based on a light-touch regulatory regime predicated upon an agreed mission between institutions and government. This regime encourages discourse founded on a set of mutual expectations – expectations that are bidirectional. Learners and institutions agree to expectations which the government has on behalf of the public. Expectations are set out for institutions, for learners and for the sector on a national basis.
One of the most compelling presentations at this symposium came from Colin Walters of Australia. Australia, of course, has a federal system, as does Canada. But at the national level, it has been able to set out four key principles for education. Much of Australia’s reform dealt with the quality of teaching and learning. They also focussed on national progress with respect to such issues as commercialization of research and changing needs of the labour market.
The European Union provides another good example. In 2002, the heads of state and governments of the EU endorsed a set of common objectives for education and training in Europe. They introduced a radical new process of co-operation among the member countries. The strategy seeks to address the demands of the knowledge economy and society, and places a great deal of emphasis on strengthening post-secondary education.
The overall objective is to make education and training systems in Europe “a world quality reference by 2010.” The strategy provides a platform “to discuss educational and training policies at a European level, and to build a coherent policy framework without impinging on national interests.”
Having outlined the gloomier side in the Canadian case as compared with the case studies that I have just mentioned, I am heartened by the results of the Council of Federation meeting yesterday, at which premiers appeared to agree that a national skills and workforce agenda is necessary. I am also encouraged by recent comments by Premier Klein at a recent address to the C.D. Howe Institute, when he said, “The most important thing in the global economy is education. And no single level of government can build a great education system on its own.”
He is absolutely right on this. No single level of government can build a great education system on its own – it requires the involvement of all partners in the learning process – educators, employers, labour, and of course learners themselves.
Let me come then, to the contribution that CCL intends to make.
The Canadian Council on Learning has a mandate to assess progress on outcomes across the continuum of lifelong learning. Given the importance of post-secondary education to Canada’s success, we believe that an objective, evidence-based review of the state of post-secondary education in this country would make a valuable contribution to policy and program planning and decisions.
In October of this year, the CCL will issue a report that will take a pan-Canadian view on post-secondary education. We will not provide the same kind of critique of individual universities across Canada that Maclean’s provides. We are not interested in league tables and inter-provincial comparisons. Our goal is to provide an analysis of the contribution that post-secondary education is making to Canadians’ social and economic well-being.
This series of annual reports will provide a statistics- and evidence-based overview of the state of PSE in Canada. Over time, the reports will illustrate changes and trends in key aspects of PSE.
The report will provide annual updates on data regarding PSE in Canada, and in a comparative context with respect to other jurisdictions of particular interest, including the USA, UK, Australia, and other OECD countries. In addition, each annual report will select particular themes or issues for more intensive examination and analysis.
Over the years, the series of reports will shed light and raise awareness and understanding with respect to broad questions/issues such as:
With this kind of information at our command, all the partners in the PSE system will be better equipped to set goals and objectives, to put in place strategies to achieve those goals and create to a rational system for evaluating the achievement of those goals on a pan-Canadian basis.
With this kind of knowledge framework, we can think in terms of a ten-year vision—one to which all levels of interested governments, of interested institutions, and of learners, might give general support. With this kind of knowledge framework, we have data to build the cohesion, coherence and capacity for learning and teaching.
The Canadian Council on Learning’s first annual report to be released in October will be an important contribution to the process of determining how well the post-secondary system is serving Canadians; and will also identify ways to strengthen the system, for the benefit of all Canadians.
The focus will be on assessing PSE performance in meeting national objectives of social and economic well-being; on the need societally to articulate such goals and develop the capacity to measure our success. It will examine not only the number of dollars spent or the numbers of scientific publications – but more profoundly determine to what extent we are advancing our national imperatives.
Ladies and gentlemen, post-secondary education is not only about meeting the needs of learners. It is not only about advancing research and interpreting and adapting knowledge. Nor is it just about preparing highly skilled human resources needed for economic growth. As important as these functions are, post-secondary education is also an investment in social cohesion. Higher levels of education contribute to better population health and to lower poverty, crime and unemployment, as well as to the prosperity of Canada and all its regions.
You are embarking on your discussions of post-secondary education in Alberta at a time when jurisdictions around the world are seeking solutions to the same challenges you will address here: issues of accessibility and accountability, quality and funding. Here in Canada, we need to take steps to measure and disseminate the data that would help inform your discussion—help place it in a pan-Canadian and an international context. For it is only in an intelligent pan-Canadian framework that individual jurisdictions will reach full potential and accomplish their individual goals.
With our proposed report on the state of post-secondary education in Canada, the Canadian Council on Learning will take the first steps.
We have received a great deal of encouragement from most parts of the country for our endeavour.
Let me, in conclusion then, draw together the various thematic strands of my discourse today:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very exciting time to be involved in Canada’s learning system. I believe we are on the threshold of a period of enormous growth and change. By gathering together here, you are demonstrating your commitment to working for progress.
Top