The Canadian government’s March 29 budget will be Ottawa’s latest crack at boosting the country’s middling record on innovation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated he wants a better return on the $7-billion that Ottawa spends to support research and development, and is expected to revamp the business tax credits that make up most of that funding, so they’re aimed at R&D that leads to successful products.

Finance Department officials might be wise to look to innovation guru Vijay Vaitheeswaran, a globe-trotting writer for The Economist, for insight on what works, what doesn’t and why. Mr. Vaitheeswaran is in Toronto next week to promote his new book Need, Speed and Greed: How the New Rules of Innovation Can transform Businesses, Propel Nations to Greatness, and Tame the World’s Most Wicked Problems, including a stop at the Munk Centre March 19.

The Globe’s Jeremy Torobin caught up with Mr. Vaitheeswaran Tuesday just after his book was released. Here is an edited transcript of their conversation:

JT: I was struck by your fairly simple definition of innovation, as ‘fresh thinking that creates market value.’ It seems so obvious, yet countries with millions of really smart people and a lot at stake in finding ways to innovate have problems doing so.

VV: Everyone agrees they’re in favour of innovation, and yet we mean different things and part of the problem is it can be used as a cloak to justify all manner of unproductive, or even distorting and frivolous, investments. That’s a big reason why a lot of economies, especially developed economies that have proud economic achievements, scientific prowess and money to invest, have trouble with this. That’s part of what animated me. People in the middle class are feeling left behind by an innovation revolution that’s helping the very poorest on Earth – with mobile phones, micro-banking and so on – and which is helping the very great elites. But we’re increasingly out of touch with the ‘Ideas Economy’ in North America, and how to capture that was one of the animating factors for me in writing the book.

JT: Policy makers in Canada say businesses need to invest more on innovation and productivity. Businesses, meanwhile, say government should provide more incentives for them to innovate. Does needing an incentive kind of miss the point?

VV: Innovation is the only reason we don’t still live in the Stone Age, or why life today is better than it was 200 years ago. Think of the age of invention, the great Victorian era 120 years ago, which produced a lot of the breakthrough that led the foundation for the 20th century – electricity, the motor car, modern chemistry and so on. Providing incentives, such as the patent system, provided great impetus for all of what made modern life possible. So I think we do need incentives, and we actually need more incentives for socially useful innovation. The ‘greed’ part of my title is not about voraciousness, it’s about using incentives to harness the power of self-interest. In terms of money and profit, yes, but also more broadly, when we talk about social entrepreneurs, things like purpose, community, social goods are also motivations. So I want to harness the desire of entrepreneurs and innovators in companies and organizations, and give them ample rewards – more than we do now – but for innovation that tackles socially difficult problems. Where I think you’re right, though, is in sniffing out corporate welfare, companies wanting more government money to invest. The biggest prize of all is market success, right? Come up with products that sell well, and you don’t need subsidies.

JT: High-risk loans and venture capital for startups are severely lacking here, which impairs companies’ commitment to innovation, according to a recent report by the Conference Board of Canada. How can countries ensure this is not the case?

VV: A willingness to embrace failure is a cultural value, as it is expressed through political, regulatory and legal norms. The old joke is entrepreneurs have to rely on friends, families and fools, because banks often don’t want to talk to you. In Canada, conservative traditions and tough regulations held the country in good stead during the crisis, but in the area of startup capital, you need to learn from some of the more innovative economies. You could look at Israel, Taiwan, parts of the Indian venture capital community in Bangalore, and in China there’s a wonderful community of so-called sea turtles, the Chinese that have gone back from overseas experiences and are now funding a lot of the startup work in Shanghai and Shenzhen.

JT: Does the plodding global recovery suggest that innovation-friendly steps like reducing protectionism or increasing labour mobility are harder to achieve? Aren’t governments everywhere showing they’ll err on the side of national self-interest?

VV: One of the great risks is of a trade war, because when economies turn down it is too tempting to point the finger at the other guy, rather than take difficult decisions at home. I worry, for example, about the ‘blame China brigade,’ which is still quite vocal, especially among politicians. A lot of problems that we have in North America are home-grown, and blaming a rising power like China is very tempting but in fact, most of the solutions to what ails North American economies can be found here.

JT: Are there any other key points of your book that you would stress?

VV: I think there is a real problem with the education systems that are prevalent in OECD countries. Canada is no exception to this argument. They were developed at a time when they were training people for the industrial model of production, so we tend to have one-size-fits-all schools, and the mode of education is fundamentally the ‘tiger mom’ mentality. Look at the debate that started about why China is eating everybody’s lunch, it was discipline over play, deference to authority over dissent, memorization and standardization over creativity. I think that’s exactly the wrong way to think about education. Every increase in value added in Canada will come from the Ideas Economy, and if you’re going to have an educational system that’s suited to that and prepares people, you have to train original thinkers, people who are willing to challenge authority, not follow hierarchy or teach to the test. Memorization, harmonization, standardization; these make an easier job for educational bureaucrats and teachers, but what we need to do is teach our children, and teach ourselves throughout our careers, to keep re-learning how to learn.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/north-america-is-out-of-touch-with-ideas-economy/article2369252/singlepage/#articlecontent >

EVERY so often someone asks me: “What’s your favorite country, other than your own?”

I’ve always had the same answer: Taiwan. “Taiwan? Why Taiwan?” people ask.

Very simple: Because Taiwan is a barren rock in a typhoon-laden sea with no natural resources to live off of — it even has to import sand and gravel from China for construction — yet it has the fourth-largest financial reserves in the world. Because rather than digging in the ground and mining whatever comes up, Taiwan has mined its 23 million people, their talent, energy and intelligence — men and women. I always tell my friends in Taiwan: “You’re the luckiest people in the world. How did you get so lucky? You have no oil, no iron ore, no forests, no diamonds, no gold, just a few small deposits of coal and natural gas — and because of that you developed the habits and culture of honing your people’s skills, which turns out to be the most valuable and only truly renewable resource in the world today. How did you get so lucky?”

That, at least, was my gut instinct. But now we have proof.

A team from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or O.E.C.D., has just come out with a fascinating little study mapping the correlation between performance on the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, exam — which every two years tests math, science and reading comprehension skills of 15-year-olds in 65 countries — and the total earnings on natural resources as a percentage of G.D.P. for each participating country. In short, how well do your high school kids do on math compared with how much oil you pump or how many diamonds you dig?

The results indicated that there was a “a significant negative relationship between the money countries extract from national resources and the knowledge and skills of their high school population,” said Andreas Schleicher, who oversees the PISA exams for the O.E.C.D. “This is a global pattern that holds across 65 countries that took part in the latest PISA assessment.” Oil and PISA don’t mix. (See the data map at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/9/49881940.pdf.)

As the Bible notes, added Schleicher, “Moses arduously led the Jews for 40 years through the desert — just to bring them to the only country in the Middle East that had no oil. But Moses may have gotten it right, after all. Today, Israel has one of the most innovative economies, and its population enjoys a standard of living most of the oil-rich countries in the region are not able to offer.”

So hold the oil, and pass the books. According to Schleicher, in the latest PISA results, students in Singapore, Finland, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan stand out as having high PISA scores and few natural resources, while Qatar and Kazakhstan stand out as having the highest oil rents and the lowest PISA scores. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran and Syria stood out the same way in a similar 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or Timss, test, while, interestingly, students from Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey — also Middle East states with few natural resources — scored better.) Also lagging in recent PISA scores, though, were students in many of the resource-rich countries of Latin America, like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. Africa was not tested. Canada, Australia and Norway, also countries with high levels of natural resources, still score well on PISA, in large part, argues Schleicher, because all three countries have established deliberate policies of saving and investing these resource rents, and not just consuming them.

Add it all up and the numbers say that if you really want to know how a country is going to do in the 21st century, don’t count its oil reserves or gold mines, count its highly effective teachers, involved parents and committed students. “Today’s learning outcomes at school,” says Schleicher, “are a powerful predictor for the wealth and social outcomes that countries will reap in the long run.”

Economists have long known about “Dutch disease,” which happens when a country becomes so dependent on exporting natural resources that its currency soars in value and, as a result, its domestic manufacturing gets crushed as cheap imports flood in and exports become too expensive. What the PISA team is revealing is a related disease: societies that get addicted to their natural resources seem to develop parents and young people who lose some of the instincts, habits and incentives for doing homework and honing skills.

By, contrast, says Schleicher, “in countries with little in the way of natural resources — Finland, Singapore or Japan — education has strong outcomes and a high status, at least in part because the public at large has understood that the country must live by its knowledge and skills and that these depend on the quality of education. … Every parent and child in these countries knows that skills will decide the life chances of the child and nothing else is going to rescue them, so they build a whole culture and education system around it.”

Or as my Indian-American friend K. R. Sridhar, the founder of the Silicon Valley fuel-cell company Bloom Energy, likes to say, “When you don’t have resources, you become resourceful.”

That’s why the foreign countries with the most companies listed on the Nasdaq are Israel, China/Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, South Korea and Singapore — none of which can live off natural resources.

But there is an important message for the industrialized world in this study, too. In these difficult economic times, it is tempting to buttress our own standards of living today by incurring even greater financial liabilities for the future. To be sure, there is a role for stimulus in a prolonged recession, but “the only sustainable way is to grow our way out by giving more people the knowledge and skills to compete, collaborate and connect in a way that drives our countries forward,” argues Schleicher.

In sum, says Schleicher, “knowledge and skills have become the global currency of 21st-century economies, but there is no central bank that prints this currency. Everyone has to decide on their own how much they will print.” Sure, it’s great to have oil, gas and diamonds; they can buy jobs. But they’ll weaken your society in the long run unless they’re used to build schools and a culture of lifelong learning. “The thing that will keep you moving forward,” says Schleicher, is always “what you bring to the table yourself.”

< http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/friedman-pass-the-books-hold-the-oil.html?ref=opinion >

The release of the Fraser Institute’s annual report card has sparked controversy over how much weight should be assigned to Ontario’s provincewide testing.

Fraser’s report card ranked elementary schools on the basis of how well students performed on annual standardized reading, writing and math tests.

Critics of Fraser’s rankings see them as a “narrow” snapshot of a school’s performance.

They charge the effort is unfair to under-performing schools, such as Toronto’s Regent/Park Duke of York, which scored an overall rating of 1.7 out of 10 but is located in an area of the city known for crime and poverty.

Those at the Fraser Institute see the rankings as a tool parents and school boards can use to see how schools stack up when it comes to their delivery of core academic subjects.

Chris Spence, director of education for the Toronto District School Board, calls Fraser’s rankings too narrow, and “not helpful” when it comes to getting an accurate look at the quality of a school.

“By not providing (context), you allow the public to make a judgment about the quality of a school without knowing enough about the school,” Spence said. “There are more (things involved) than EQAO scores… Are the parents involved? Is it a safe and welcoming environment?”

The Fraser Institute published its annual rankings for elementary schools in Alberta on Feb. 26. Alberta Education Minister Thomas Luaszuk — a long-standing critic of the Fraser report cards — says standardized testing is in place to measure only a “narrow aspect” of what goes on in schools and should not be used as a way to rank them.

“This test has been designed to measure a narrow aspect of our curriculum,” argued Lukaszuk.He is currently planning “comprehensive packages” that will one day come with Alberta’s test results in hopes of luring parents away from Fraser’s report card.

Additional data would include things such as graduation rates and the rate of parental involvement at a school.

“When children learn, they do more than take in information and regurgitate it,” he said. “How is a child processing information? How are they growing emotionally? How are they developing from an artistic standpoint?”

Those at Fraser see it differently.

While it is true the report card does not look at the socio-economic environment of a school, save for parents’ annual income, it does provide a focused look at how the school is delivering academics, said Fraser Institute associate director Michael Thomas.

“It doesn’t tell you if it’s a good school or a bad school, these are judgments parents have to make. The point of the report is how well (a school) delivers its program in academic areas.”

Thomas argues that “hardships” outside of a school — such as poverty or a community with a large number of single parents — are not necessarily determinants of academic failure or success.

Of the 2,695 schools ranked in Fraser’s Ontario report card, Thomas said 21% achieved ratings above the provincial average despite having an average family income falling bellow the provincial average — at times as much as $30,000 below.

“Parents deserve to know why a school is performing the way it is,” insists Thomas, adding that it is also “important among schools to know if something happened at a school that caused the marks to go up or down.”

Ontario Progressive Conservative education critic Lisa MacLeod calls results from standardized testing a necessary “measuring” that school boards can use to see which of their schools need assistance.

Ontario Education Minister Laurel Broten was unavailable for comment.

Ontario’s elementary and secondary school boards will receive $21 billion in funding this school year, according to Ontario’s education ministry. Of that, almost half will go to boards in the Greater Toronto Area.

< http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/03/04/fraser-report-raises-questions-on-provincewide-testing >

From a slower move to full-day kindergarten to squeezing middle-income students from the new tuition rebate and considering user fees for some school bus routes and extra high school credits, few corners of Ontario’s schoolhouse have escaped Don Drummond’s fiscal knife.

The economist advising Queen’s Park on how to wipe out the deficit suggests sweeping changes to the sector on which Premier Dalton McGuinty has staked his reputation, arguing the province has hiked per-pupil spending by 56 per cent in the past 10 years, while enrolment has plunged.

In one of his most extreme recommendations, he calls for the province to flat-out cancel its signature full-day kindergarten program because its eventual $1.5 billion yearly price-tag is “inappropriate in this current fiscal climate.” But in the likely event the “Education Premier” balks at such a recall, Drummond suggests he at least slow down the rollout of the program by three years to finish in 2017-2018, rather than 2014-2015.

He also suggests scrapping the current full-day kindergarten model of one teacher and one early childhood educator for an average of 26 kindergarten children, to a smaller class of 20 with just one teacher.

Drummond also tackles one of the first planks of McGuinty’s signature education reforms; smaller classes. Arguing that there is no solid proof smaller classes actually lead to better test scores — even though both have happened since the Liberals took office in 2003 — Drummond suggests Ontario could save money without seeing achievement backslide by letting primary classes grow to 23 children between grades 1 and 3, up from the current 20 children, which is now the maximum in 90 per cent of Ontario grade schools.

In grades 4 to 8, he suggests hiking the recommended average to 26 from its current target of 24.5, and in high school he says the average class size could grow to 24 from 22 without jeopardizing the gains Ontario has made in lowering the dropout rate and boosting achievement.

The class cap has proven difficult for schools to work around, forcing many split-grade classes and even some triple-grades or awkward splits of kindergarten and Grade 1. One additional student in September can force a principal to have to create an entirely new class after children have started school.

Drummond also suggests school boards lose a staggering 70 per cent of the 13,800 extra non-teaching staff it has provided funding for since 2003 — a move bound to be unpopular since these include such heavily used support staff as psychologists, education assistants, guidance counsellors and library assistants.

He also closes the door on the so-called “victory lap” that some 14 per cent of high school students now take in a fifth year of high school to polish their marks and hike their chances at higher learning. Drummond suggests letting students earn 32 credits for free at high school — two more than needed for a diploma. High schools could charge fees for any extra credits.

Ontario ended the fifth year of high school a decade ago, but students are still allowed to take more time to finish their diploma. In Ontario some 19,650 students who started Grade 9 in 2005-6 came back for a fifth year — a little more than 13 per cent of the 150,000 students in that cohort.

In a move sure to cause outrage among the families of students with special needs, Drummond says he does not believe there is a problem with the special education funding formula — something many families would dispute. Instead, he calls for a sweeping review of special education to make sure “every dollar goes to where is will have the most impact.”

Drummond notes the growing cost of busing students to school, and suggests scrapping a recent moratorium on putting bus contracts out to tender. Even so, he recommends school boards consider charging user fees for school buses if needed, although special help would be offered to students of lower income, special needs and rural areas.

He also recommends closing the traditional provincially run schools for some 800 children who are blind, deaf and have particular learning disabilities He argues that having school staff be employees of the provincial government is “not the best governance arrangement” and recommends letting school boards take in these students in new expanded programs, and leaving one provincially run school for the deaf.

As well, Drummond suggests tightening up the rules about teachers receiving grants for getting extra qualifications, so that an independent body would review whether the teacher deserves it. He also suggests school boards no longer be allowed to offer teachers “retirement gratuities,” which cost taxpayers some $1.7 billion.

It suggests the province have the power to order school boards to sell unused buildings – closed schools – and also suggests merging grades 7 and 8 with high school to use buildings more efficiently.

With regard to post-secondary education, Drummond states flatly that quality of higher education in Ontario has been “undermined” by rapid expansion with the lowest funding level in Canada. He cites larger classes, more part-time instructors and less contact with professors.

“You really shouldn’t be doing multiple-choice exams in third- and fourth-year of university,” said Drummond Wednesday, referring to the growing move away from essay questions that take longer to mark.

He recommends a more deliberately two-tiered system of universities; some that focus on research but others that specialize on undergraduate teaching, a suggestion that many smaller institutions have charged unfairly clips their research dreams. But Drummond says universities should not be chasing research dollars at the expense of teaching the booming ranks of undergraduates.

He suggests the government establish clearer “mandate agreements” with colleges and universities that sharpen the focus of each school and reduce duplication – and these should be put into play in 2013-2014. He suggests the province name a blue-ribbon panel to figure out which programs are worth expanding. He also recommends considering how well professors score on student satisfaction surveys as part of the measure of quality.

Drummond recommends keeping the longstanding 5 per cent cap on tuition, although he suggests universities and colleges be allowed to tweak particular program increases within that average. But he recommends reducing the number of students who would qualify for the new 30 per cent tuition rebate – just launched in January – by lowering the income ceiling from its current $160,000 a year annual income.

“Student assistance should be targeted to those who need it most,” he stated.

While Drummond called the surge in tuition fees in Ontario “troubling” – the average undergraduate tuition is now $6,400 per year, the highest in Canada – he says a tuition freeze are not in students’ best interests because the squeeze it would put on campus coffers would end up leading to a “further deterioration of the student experience…there must be a better balance – excellent research should not trump excellent teaching.”

Drummond suggests universities should be encouraged to be flexible enough in their contracts with professors to reward strong teachers as well as strong researchers.

He also suggests post-secondary spending grow by no more than 1.5 per cent until 2017.

Drummond also suggests making it easier for students to move back and forth between colleges and universities. Some college students should be able to move to university after two years of study in certain situations.

In a move sure to upset community colleges, Drummond suggests they not be allowed to add any new degree programs – something colleges say are a growth sector for them. Indeed, the province says no new programs at all should be added unless institutions can make a solid business case.

It was not clear exactly what Drummond meant by suggesting that funding for institutions be tied to the number of students who graduate – “degrees awarded” – rather than students who are enrolled.

He suggests compelling universities to consider whether they can shrink four-year degrees to three years by letting student study over the summer.

He suggests scrapping post-secondary tuition tax credits and investing them in upfront grants to students.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1131852–larger-classrooms-among-sweeping-changes-suggested-to-education?bn=1 >

Parliament Hill was decked out in red hearts Tuesday morning, as about 400 children – aboriginal and non-aboriginal – from across the country brought “valentines” with a special message for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Have a Heart campaign aims to raise awareness about the problems facing aboriginal children in government care.

It’s part of a major publicity campaign surrounding a Federal Court judicial review brought by aboriginal child-advocacy groups against a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision to dismiss a case against the federal government.

The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations allege the government is discriminating against aboriginal children by consistently underfunding child-welfare services on reserves, leading, they contend, to poverty, poor housing, substance abuse and a vast over-representation of aboriginal children in state care.

“This case will not only affect one child, one family or one first nation. This com-plaint is about all FN children on reserve – it is therefore, an issue of significant importance” and should be heard on the merits, said Sarah Clarke, counsel for the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

The caring society is one of several groups, including the Chiefs of Ontario, Amnesty International and The Canadian Human Rights Commission, appealing a 2011 ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In that ruling, the tribunal dismissed a discrimination case brought by the Assembly of first nations and caring society in 2007.

However, the federal government is expected to argue today that, because it merely sends funds to band managers, who administer the services, the government cannot be held responsible for the services delivered.

The government also says the question itself is invalid because it funds services on reserves, while provincial governments are responsible for services to the rest of Canadians, and that comparing two governments is both “unreasonable” and nonsensical.

The “comparator” argument was used in the human rights tribunal’s initial decision to dismiss the case in 2011 before any of the main evidence had been heard.

At the Tuesday rally on Parliament Hill, students from six public schools from Ontario and Quebec gathered to deliver Valentine’s Day cards to Harper demanding “equal education” for first nations children. Several carried posters with hand-written messages, such as “My Canada includes Reserves” and “The Gov’t of Canada is no ally to protect the rights of First Nations Children.” Union representatives from CUPE also attended.

A young boy from the Kiti-gan Zibi First Nation in Mani-waki, Que., was one of several students from Grades 4 to 8 who spoke to the crowd about the need for improved education services in first nations schools.

His school, he said, doesn’t even have a library.

“The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights is for all Canadians,” said another student, named Elliot. “Despite the commitment of Canada, Canada has failed miserably in this regard.”

< http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Children+Harper+Have+Heart+improve+education+reserves/6155084/story.html >

I am a parent of two children attending the Waweyekisik Education Centre located on the Waterhen Lake First Nation in northern Saskatchewan (Reserve School Can’t Pay Teachers – Feb. 4) and a proud member of this Cree Nation. I am actively involved in my children’s education and have been in this school on numerous occasions, meeting many of these teachers. I am concerned about the funding dilemma facing the school’s principal.

I can attest to the fact that the quality and dedication of the teachers at this school have made a difference in the success of the students and their attitude toward education. Unless Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada increases funding to match the wage increases of provincial teachers, First Nation schools will not be able to afford or retain quality teachers.

If education is a means to alleviate dependency, poverty and social issues, then why does the government continue to underfund education on reserves such as Waterhen Lake? I urge the Prime Minister to make the financial resources available so Waweyekisik can continue its success with students.

Dwayne Lasas, vice-chief, Meadow Lake Tribal Council, Meadow Lake, Sask.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/feb-10-letters-to-the-editor/article2332981/ >

“Well, if it had to be a boy, at least you guys will raise him okay.”

This was the response of a female relative upon the birth of my son almost two decades ago. My wife and I were silent. The implication was clear: it was unfortunate that our beautiful newborn happened to be male. Solely owing to his gender, he was an inherently negative presence on the planet. There was hope, though, that with enlightened parenting, he might be prevented from being a total bust in the calculus of the common good.

According to educator Michael Reist, such negative attitudes toward boys have permeated not only our imaginations, but also our public education system. Reist, whose recent book is called Raising Boys in a New Kind of World, has struck both a chord and a nerve among many Canadians.

A high school educator for over 30 years, Reist has noticed that both our culture and curricula have been tinctured by the notion that “boys and men are problems.”

“We need to stop pathologizing male behaviour,” he said in a recent conversation.

Reist claims that with the “common sense revolution” of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, the educational landscape of Ontario has shifted away from a child-centred focus to a curriculum-based approach. With an emphasis on “outcomes” and “rubrics,” this model is big on measuring and quantifying success. “If it can’t be qualified or measured,” Reist notes, “it is of no value.” This renders our students “commodities” to be produced rather than citizens to be educated.

Noting that “boy energy” is often perceived as something “innately disruptive,” Reist has observed that boys, in particular, are seen as threats to the “institutional decorum” of schools, expressed in three terse rules: “sit still, be quiet, and do what you’re told.”

Building on recent research in psychology and cognitive studies, he points out that many boys learn kinetically, and that their tendencies to fidget, tap and move while in the classroom is not only normal, but also often advantageous for their learning processes.

Suggesting that there is often a year-and-a-half difference in biological and cognitive development between girls and boys, he claims this often slides into the mindset that “girls are smarter than boys.” In fact, Reist claims, they are simply at different developmental levels. The fact that girls now outnumber boys in many university undergraduate and graduate programs, he continues, is suggestive that such negative attitudes toward boys are having lasting effects.

Reist argues that as “the strap” and other forms of corporal punishment have faded from the classroom, educators have had to search for other forms of maintain order. One of the newer tools of classroom control has come in the form of medications such as Ritalin, sometimes used to help students with attention deficit disorder and other psychological issues, but increasingly prescribed on the advice of teachers to help certain students, especially boys, behave.

While Reist has seen certain cases where the use of such medications has been helpful, he is concerned about the over-prescribing of such drugs chiefly to maintain order.

Influenced by Richard Louv, whose book, Last Child in the Woods, talks about “nature deficit disorder” and how children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder are often greatly helped and cured by exposure to nature, Reist claims that climbing a tree for a child is one of the best activities for overall physical and cognitive development.

“Nature is the great therapy of the future.”

For Reist, one of the most important steps in dealing with boy energy is not to tranquilize, but to empathize. He invites educators to try and place themselves in a 10-year-old boy’s shoes, and build their lesson plans from there.

Though paying special attention to boys, Reist’s critique is perhaps equally germane to girls who also learn kinetically, and suffer from educational systems that privilege conformity over creativity.

A fidgeting boy at his desk, or a girl who likes to chat with the friend beside her, might be an occasional annoyance; they may also form part of the stuff of which vital societies are made.

Stephen Bede Scharper is associate professor with the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1122902–learning-to-live-with-boy-energy >

Do we really need three new university campuses in Ontario?

That’s the province’s response to improving access to post-secondary education in order to reach its target of having 70 per cent of the workforce attain some level of higher education.

Certainly, post-secondary attainment levels need to improve. A report I released last year examining workforce demographics and transformations in the workplace predicts that in 10 years’ time, more than 700,000 people in Ontario will be unemployable due to insufficient education and training.

However, it’s unlikely the proposed changes to post-secondary education that are currently being discussed in Ontario will address this challenge.

Even if the new universities or campuses are launched as teaching-oriented universities — which are less expensive — it’s doubtful the academic community will allow that model to continue over the long term. Eventually, the institutions will become “real” universities, with all the associated research and administrative costs.

And the added expense for new university spaces is unlikely to significantly change the number of people who are properly trained for the workforce.

Currently, many university students are spending more time in school than initially planned. That’s because they graduate from university without the qualifications to find meaningful work and have to pursue further programs at Ontario’s colleges.

In 2003, there were 11,291 university graduates enrolling in colleges. By 2010, that number rose to 19,572, an increase of 73 per cent. These figures would be even more dramatic if we included the 14,412 students enrolled in full-time college programs who have some university credits. That is the size of three or four universities.

Many of these students entered university expecting their university degree would lead to a job. Little did they realize their route to employment would take much longer, resulting in a significant level of debt, frustration, and lost income.

As taxpayers, we pay for their education twice. We pay universities to educate students in a four-year bachelor’s program and when they have difficulty finding a job, we pay the colleges to give them a one- or two-year job-related program. It also creates unnecessary costs for students. They pay twice, as well. Do we really have enough money to further expand this double-payment model by creating more universities?

The focus of our attention right now seems to be on what is best for universities and what is politically popular, rather than what is in the best interest of students.

What should Ontario do to increase post-secondary attainment levels?

The focus needs to be on delivering higher education to people who, traditionally, wouldn’t have pursued any education after high school. In most cases, these are students who have had academic challenges and find theoretical learning more difficult than hands-on training.

We should probably be looking at a different or expanded role for colleges, and new partnership arrangements between colleges and universities that allow students to get career-focused higher education in a more expedient (and less costly) manner.

Within the college sector, reforms should be implemented that ensure that any college student moving from a diploma program to a degree program is able to complete his/her education within four years of study.

We might also want to consider creating different types of institutions that make our system stronger.

Rather than being university fixated, let’s refocus the debate on models and approaches that break the mould and put students and our economy first.

Our post-secondary system is not a hierarchy. Ontario’s universities and colleges have unique and often complementary expertise that should be better utilized for the sake of our students and the province’s economy.

We need to be willing to ask different and difficult questions. Most of all, we need the fortitude to withstand the pressures from those who will resist change.

Rick Miner, president emeritus of Seneca College, has three decades of senior management experience in universities and colleges.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1115552–does-ontario-really-need-three-new-universities >

As the new year begins and humanities and social science undergraduates across Canada return to campus, they will face the usual robust combination of academic pressure, parental anxiety over their future employability, nervousness over mounting debts and the inevitable recitation of that tired and toxic mantra: “How many sociologists do we need, anyway?”

They will have been steeled to face the scrutiny of their professors and the apprehension of their parents. However, the incomprehension and parochialism of the commentators, policy wonks and self-labelled enlightened pragmatists who call into question the validity of their studies is both dispiriting and frustrating.

Unpersuaded by the compelling philosophical and social arguments that undergird the continuing relevance of a liberal arts education, and determined to place utility and rationalization of services as the premier determinants of higher education, the critics can easily assail the productivity value of a traditional liberal arts education. They simply point to economic data that shore up theirs as the only common-sense position in a time of global upheaval.

In other words, reading Schopenhauer, exploring the relationship between Freud and Jung, studying patterns of exile in the new breed of Canadian novelist or probing the sublime beauty of a late Beethoven piano quartet are nice, but indulgent – a waste of taxpayers’ money and a dereliction of responsibility at a time when the economic engine requires nothing higher than entrepreneurial spirit.

But here’s an idea: a social sciences and humanities education as a corrective to political tyranny.

The recent deaths of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and former Czech president Vaclav Havel provide an arresting example of the formative power of education. Mr. Kim and Mr. Havel were dramatic contrasts in style of governance, liberality of mind and openness to new thinking, but they can also serve as case studies of the myopic and deadening education of the technocrat as opposed to the expansive and liberating education of the playwright-essayist.

Admittedly, being a technocrat is not a bad thing; the governments of Greece and Italy have replaced their respective prime ministers, George Papandreou and Silvio Berlusconi, with technocrats Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti. But the latter are economists and not party functionaries like Mr. Kim, who was adept enough to charm former U.S. secretary of state MadeleineAlbright and others with a self-deprecating manner and a familiarity with pop culture, all the while remaining a dangerous political fantasist.

A liberal arts education is not an automatic guarantor of an emancipated intellect or an enlightened sensibility. You have to work at it. In fact, Mr. Havel was prevented from studying the humanities at university for political reasons, an early indicator for him that the authorities appreciated the subversive potential of such an education. But the capacity of a writer and political thinker like Mr. Havel to usher in a new and bloodless era by symbolizing the conscience of freedom-enamoured Czechs would be unthinkable were it not for his exposure to a tradition of learning that is not subservient to a prevailing political ideology, that is deeply humanist in its core, steeped in the writings of extraterritorial thinkers not held hostage to the orthodoxy of the moment.

North Korea’s Dear Leader may have been an obsessive devotee of Hollywood B movies, thereby giving him a mite of aesthetic relief from the grey madness of Pyongyang, but Mr. Havel brought down an oppressive system through his art and witness.

So, when next a young sociology undergraduate is critiqued in the manner of Peter Shaffer’s Austrian emperor in Amadeus, who observes to a puzzled Mozart that his just-debuted work has “too many notes,” the student might respond that there are as many sociologists as it takes to keep us free.

Michael W. Higgins is an author and past president of two Canadian liberal arts universities.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/too-many-sociologists-just-enough/article2287669/ >

These are valid concerns. If we plan to continue with the status quo, then allowing these devices will only invite disaster. If poorly implemented, BYOD could result in a policy allowing the rich kids to play with their expensive toys, while others do without. However, in an open classroom, where students are encouraged to collaborate with one another, to seek expertise outside of the school, and to integrate their learning into their everyday lives, such an approach could thrive. Ideally, it should mean tailoring the school’s technology budget towards those who really need it. Instead of three students sharing a laptop, one could be using it, while the others use their own devices. And with tablets now hitting the price of a single textbook, school-purchased devices will soon pay for themselves.

‘Flip’ classrooms

The “flipped classroom,” which originated with the Khan Academy, is one new model that uses technology to personalize instruction. Students are instructed to listen to math lessons at home, by accessing the Khan Academy site on their computer or mobile device. This prepares them to do their homework in class, where they can get help from their teacher when they get stuck. The advantages to this model seem obvious. Students can move ahead at their own pace, only moving ahead as they master the content. The teacher then gives face-to-face feedback in real time as they practice mastering a new skill. The video content is not only engaging, but it can be paused, rewound and replayed as needed. These small chunks of video tend to be better suited to students attention spans than long lectures also. If students bring their devices to class, the teacher can show them proper use. Jim Shelton of the U.S. Education Department remarks that this new model “has tapped into the desire that everyone has to personalize the learning experience,” and predicts it’s “going to spread like wildfire.”

Flipped classrooms are being used mostly for math, but they can be dynamite for sciences and humanities as well. Students use their mobile devices for discussion, sharing, communication, and for accessing resources. Skillful teachers, such as Wendy Drexler (cited here) can show students how to use Facebook and Twitter to build their own personal learning network. Students can connect with peers and experts through blogs, wikis and forums. Recently, a student of mine completed a novel for an English class. One option I gave him was to respond to a review of the novel that he found online. When he did so, the author of the blog not only responded to his posting, but changed her original review due to a couple of factual errors he pointed out.

In an open classroom like this one, the teacher’s role changes from the expert at the front of the room to “guide at the side,” who helps students make sense of the expertise they find online. This is not a demotion, but a role that requires a great deal of skill in showing students how to think critically about the topic at hand, and how to filter out information that is useful and relevant from that which isn’t. These might be the most valuable skills that we can pass on to the next generation. To paraphrase Clay Shirky, there is no information overload, just filter failure.

New teaching toolbox

In an open classroom, the teacher introduces students to useful programs and applications that will help them to achieve the goals they’ve set for themselves. For example, a social studies teacher could show students working on a research project how to use the free app Evernote to gather notes, quotations, videos, podcasts, photos and diagrams into one place, where they can be mulled over, prioritized and organized into a project or presentation. A drama teacher might introduce students to Qikpad, so that students can collaborate on a script, writing lines back and forth in real time, while a science teacher can assign bonus marks to students who use StudyBlue to create mobile flashcards with pictures and audio that they can study while waiting for the bus. The English teacher can have students use SpiderScribeto create multimedia mindmaps that can handle documents, videos, calendars, links, images and locations. The same students can then use Storybird to collaborate upon pictured storybooks that they publish and share online.

This new, networked teacher will communicate with students, parents and colleagues using a mobile device for email, texts, instant messaging, voice mail and phone calls. Some opt to useCelly to communicate with students and parents, without either party revealing their phone numbers.

As George Abbott says in B.C.’s new Education Plan “We need to make a better link between what kids learn at school and what they experience and learn in their everyday lives.” This document also discusses the need for teachers to be supported in their roles as “guides” and “coaches” so that they can put students at the “centre of a more personalized approach to learning.”

It will be Abbott’s call as to whether we will deal with BYOD on an ad hoc basis, or if we sit at the table with all concerned, roll up our sleeves and do it properly. That is a call that B.C.’s students are waiting for. 

Nick Smith is a veteran public school teacher who lives on the Sunshine Coast in British Columbia. You can read his series Tyee reader-funded series “Teaching that Inspires” here.

< http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/12/26/Tech-Savvy-Classroom/index1.html >