Category: Research

  • Notes on Research Policy, Here and Abroad

    Notes on Research Policy, Here and Abroad

    Hi all. I thought I would take some time to have a chat about how research policy is evolving in other countries, because I think there are some lessons we need to learn here in Canada.

    One piece of news that struck me this week came from Switzerland, where the federal government is slashing the budget of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) by 20%. If the Swiss, a technological powerhouse of a nation, with a broad left-right coalition in power and a more or less balanced budget, are cutting back on science like this, then we might all have to re-think the idea that being anti-Science is just a manifestation of right-wing populism. Higher education as a whole has some thinking to do.

    And right now, two countries are in fact re-thinking science quite a bit. In the UK, the new head of UK Research and Innovation (roughly, that country’s One Big Granting Council), has told institutions that they might need to start “doing fewer things but doing them well”, to which the President of Universities UK and vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University Malcom-Press added that he was “hearing from government is that [they] don’t want to be investing in areas of research where we don’t have the quality and we don’t have the scale.” And, the kicker: “You can’t have hobbyist research that’s unfunded going on in institutions. We can’t afford it.”

    Over to Australia, where a few months ago the government set up a Strategic Examination of Research and Development, which released a discussion paper, held consultations and got feedback (which it published) and has now released six more “issue” papers for consultation which detail government thinking in many different and more detailed ways. If this sounds magical to you, it is because you are from Canada, where the standard practice for policymaking is to do everything behind closed doors and treat stakeholders like mushrooms (in the dark with only fecal matter for company) instead of a place where policy-making is treated as a serious endeavour in which public input and expert advice is welcomed. 

    For today’s purposes however, what matters is not process but policy. The review is seriously considering a number of fairly radical ideas, such as creating a few national “focus areas” for research funding, which would attract higher rates of overhead and requiring institutions to focus their efforts in one of these priority areas via mission-based compacts (which are sort of like Ontario’s Multi-Year Agreements, only they are meaningful) so as to build scale and specialization. 

    Whew.

    One thing that strikes me as odd about both the UK and Australian line of thinking is the idea that institutional specialization matters all that much. While lots of research is done at the level of the individual lab, most “big science” – the stuff people who dream about specialization have in mind when the talk about science – happens in teams which span many institutions, and more often than not across national borders as well. I get the sense that the phenomenon of institutional rankings have fried policy makers’ brains somewhat: they seem to think that the correct way to think about science is at the level of the institution, rather than labs or networks of laboratories. It’s kind of bananas. We can be glad that this kind of thinking has not infected Canadian policy too much because the network concept is more ingrained here.

    Which brings me to news here at home. 

    The rumour out of Ottawa is that in the next few months (still not clear if this is going to be fall 2025 or Spring 2026) there will be an announcement of a new envelope of money for research. But very definitely not inquiry-driven research. No, this is money which the feds intend to spend as part of the increase in “defence” spending which is supposed to rise to 2% of GDP by 2025-2026 and 5% by 2035. So, the kinds of things it will need to go to will be “security”, likely defined relatively generously. It will be for projects in space, protection of critical infrastructure, resiliency, maybe energy production, etc.  I don’t think this is going to be all about STEM and making widgets – there will be at least some room for social science in these areas and maybe humanities, too, though this seems to me a harder pitch to make. It is not clear from what I have heard if this is going to be one big pie or a series of smaller pies, divided up wither by mission or by existing granting council. But the money does seem to be on its way.

    Now before I go any further, I should point out that I have not heard anyone say that these new research envelopes are actually going to contain new money beyond what was spent in 2024-25.  As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, that would be hard to square with the government’s deficit-fighting commitments.

    In fact, if I had to guess right now, the best-case scenario would be that the Liberals will do this by taking some or all of the 88% of the Budget 2024 research commitment to the tri-councils and push it into these new envelopes (worst-case scenario: they nuke the 88% of the 2024 Budget commitment they haven’t yet spent and claw back money from existing commitments to make these new envelopes). 

    So, obviously no push here for institutional specialization, but where our debate echoes those of the UK and Australia is that all three governments seem to want to shift away from broad-based calls for inquiry driven research and toward more mission-based research in some vaguely defined areas of national priority.  I know this is going to irritate and anger many people, but genuinely I don’t see many politically practical alternatives right now. As I said back here: if defending existing inquiry-driven tri-council budgets is the hill the sector chooses to die on, we’re all going to be in big trouble. 

    No one will forcing individual researchers or institutions to be part of this shift to mission-driven research, but clearly that’s where the money is going to be. So, my advice to VPs Research is: get your ducks in a row on this now. Figure out who in your institution does anything that can even tangentially be referred to as “security-enhancing”. Figure out what kinds of pitches you might want to make.  Start testing your elevator pitches. There will be rewards to first movers in this area.

    Source link

  • How Community Innovation Practitioners are reshaping place-based innovation

    How Community Innovation Practitioners are reshaping place-based innovation

    Research has the capacity to transform universities, communities and their places. The problem is that the funding architecture does not allow for sufficient sharing of power, benefits, or resources between communities, academics and non-academic partners.

    How research funding is organised, distributed, and managed, spotlights issues of regional inequality and uneven cultural and economic growth.

    These challenges, and how to address them, are at the heart of the Northumbria University led deep dive scoping report, By All, For All: The Power of Partnership, which provided the robust evidence base for best practice in partnership working and bridging knowledge gaps.

    The report makes recommendations for devolving research power, directly addressing the UKRI strategic aim to work across an expanded research ecosystem, with communities as researchers rather than just the subjects of research.

    Funding

    A new round of Community Innovation Practitioner (CIP) Awards—the signature award of the Creative Communities programme–a £3.9 million investment funded by the UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and based at Northumbria University–is a direct result of those recommendations.

    Harnessing the transformative power of devolution, the CIP Awards embed researchers directly within communities across all four devolved nations and devolved mayoral regions of the UK for a year. The awards contribute to an emerging evidence base on how culture can enhance belonging, address regional inequality, deliver devolution and break down barriers to opportunity for communities.

    Underpinning the work of the CIPs is a fundamental question: what if we stopped doing research to communities and started doing it with them?

    The first cohort of CIPs employed co-creative methodologies to address complex social challenges across diverse communities, from Belfast’s Market area to Welsh post-industrial regions and Liverpool’s healthcare settings. Their work aimed to empower marginalised communities through participatory cultural interventions, using arts, heritage, music and creative practices as vehicles for social change and community building.

    Each practitioner developed innovative approaches to bridge academic research with grassroots community needs, fostering cross-sector collaborations that challenged traditional boundaries between universities, public services and residents–using the so-called ‘quadruple helix’ model. Through their community-led research, the CIPs demonstrated how creative co-production can tackle issues ranging from mental health and social isolation to heritage conservation and youth engagement, ultimately building more inclusive and resilient communities.

    The 2025-6 cohort of CIPs build on that strong foundation. They will generate vital new knowledge about co-creation and the unique role played by their communities and partnerships in growth through new research, development and innovation (RD&I).

    Between them, the six CIPs will transform empty retail spaces into creative hubs in Dundee; foster reconciliation in Belfast through a co-created community art exhibition; strengthen community cohesion through craft in Rochdale; address cultural health and creating cultural planning across Kirklees; support cultural regeneration in Digbeth and inspire new forms of collective storytelling in Cardiff.

    Democratising research outputs

    With UK Government Missions focused on addressing regional inequality and economic growth, there’s growing recognition that top-down policy interventions have limited effectiveness. The CIP Awards directly address this by generating evidence from the ground up, with communities defining both problems and solutions.

    This approach aligns with broader shifts in policy thinking. The recent emphasis on place-based innovation across government departments reflects a growing understanding that place really matters—that solutions appropriate for, say, Manchester might fail spectacularly in Dundee, not because of implementation failures but because they were never designed with local lived experience and landscapes in mind.

    When it comes to democratising research funding and carrying out co-creation, significant obstacles remain. The promotion criteria in universities still heavily favour traditional academic outputs over community impact. REF panels, despite rhetorical commitments to broader impact, struggle to assess research where communities are co-creators rather than case studies, and funding timelines often clash with the slow work of building genuine partnerships.

    The CIP Awards attempt to address some of these structural barriers by providing dedicated funding for relationship-building and requiring evidence of community partnership from the application stage. But systemic change will require broader cultural shifts.

    A model for the future

    Early indicators from Creative Communities research are promising. Projects have influenced everything from devolved government manifestos, to UNESCO heritage policies and NHS approaches to community health. But scaling this impact requires moving beyond individual projects to a wider systemic change of who gets to do RD&I.

    The CIP Awards represent more than a funding opportunity: they’re a prototype for what research looks like when we take community expertise seriously. In an era of declining trust in institutions and growing demands for research relevance, this approach offers a path toward more democratic, more impactful, and ultimately more valuable knowledge creation that is truly by all, and for all.

    The Creative Communities podcast is available online CIP Podcast – Creative Communities. You can read more about the work of AHRC Creative Communities on the website, where you can access the case studies and policy papers from the 2023-24 CIPs.

    Source link

  • Is research culture really too hard to assess?

    Is research culture really too hard to assess?

    Assessing research culture has always been seen as difficult – some would say too difficult.

    Yet as REF 2029 pauses for reflection, the question of whether and how culture should be part of the exercise is unavoidable. How we answer this has the potential to shape not only the REF, but also the value we place on the people and practices that define research excellence.

    The push to assess research culture emerged from recognition that thriving, well-supported researchers are themselves important outcomes of the research system. The Stern Review highlighted that sustainable research excellence depends not just on research outputs but on developing the people who produce them. The Harnessing the Metric Tide report built on this understanding, recommending that future REF cycles should reward progress towards better research cultures.

    A significant proportion of what we have learnt about assessing research culture came from the People, Culture and Environment indicators project, run by Vitae and Technopolis, and Research England’s subsequent REF PCE pilot exercise. Together with the broader consultation as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme, this involved considerable sector engagement over multiple years.

    Indicators

    Nearly 1,600 people applied to participate in the PCE indicators co-development workshops. Over 500 participated across 137 institutions, with participants at all levels of career stage and roles. Representatives from ARMA, NADSN, UKRN, BFAN, ITSS, FLFDN and NCCPE helped facilitate the discussions and synthesise messages.

    The workshops confirmed what many suspected about assessing research culture. It’s genuinely difficult. Nearly every proposed indicator proved problematic. Participants raised concerns about gaming and burden. Policies could become tick-box exercises. Metrics might miss crucial context. But participants saw that clusters of indicators used together and contextualised could allow institutions to tell meaningful stories about their approach and avoid the potentially misleading pictures painted by isolated indicators.

    A recurring theme was the need to focus on mechanisms, processes and impacts, not on inputs. Signing up for things, collecting badges, and writing policies isn’t enough. We need to make sure that we are doing something meaningful behind these. This doesn’t mean we cannot evidence progress, rather that the evidence needs contextualising. The process of developing evidence against indicators would incentivise institutions to think more carefully about what they’re doing, why, and for whom.

    The crucial point that seems to have been lost is that REF PCE never set out to measure culture directly. Instead, it aimed to assess credible indicators of how institutions enable and support inclusive, sustainable, high-quality research.

    REF PCE was always intended to be an evolution, not a revolution. Culture has long been assessed in the REF, including through the 2021 Environment criteria of vitality and sustainability. The PCE framework aimed to build on this foundation, making assessment more systematic and comprehensive.

    Finance and diversity

    Two issues levelled at PCE have been the sector’s current financial climate and the difficulty of assessing culture fairly across institutional diversity. These are not new revelations. Both were anticipated and debated extensively in the PCE indicators project.

    Workshop participants stressed that the assessment must recognise that institutions operate with different resources and constraints, focusing on progress and commitment rather than absolute spending levels. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to what a good research culture looks like. Excellent research culture can look very different across the sector and even within institutions.

    This led to a key conclusion: fair assessment must recognise different starting points while maintaining meaningful standards. Institutions should demonstrate progress against a range of areas, with flexibility in how they approach challenges. Assessment needs to focus on ‘distance travelled’ rather than the destination reached.

    Research England developed the REF PCE pilot following these insights. This was deliberately experimental, testing more indicators than would ultimately be practical, as a unique opportunity to gather evidence about what works, what doesn’t, what is feasible, and equitable across the sector. Pilot panel members and institutions were co-designers, not assessors and assessees. The point was to develop evidence for a streamlined, proportionate, and robust approach to assessing culture.

    REF already recognises that publications and impact are important outputs of research. The PCE framework extended this logic: thriving, well-supported people working across all roles are themselves crucial outcomes that institutions should develop and celebrate.

    This matters because sustainable research excellence depends on the people who make it happen. Environments that support career development, recognise diverse contributions, and foster inclusion don’t just feel better to work in – they produce better research. The consultation revealed sophisticated understanding of this connection. Participants emphasised that research quality emerges from cultures that value integrity, collaboration, and support for all contributors.

    Inputs

    Some argue that culture is an input to the system that shouldn’t be assessed directly. Others suggest establishing baseline performance requirements as a condition for funding. However, workshop discussions revealed that setting universal standards low enough for all institutions to meet renders them meaningless as drivers of improvement. Baselines are important, but alone they are not sufficient. Research culture requires attention through assessment, incentivisation and reward that goes beyond minimum thresholds.

    Patrick Vallance and Research England now have unprecedented evidence about research culture assessment. Consultation has revealed sector priorities. The pilot has tested practical feasibility. The upcoming results, to be published in October, will show what approaches are viable and proportionate.

    Have we encountered difficulties? Yes. Do we have a perfect solution for assessing culture? No. But this REF is a huge first step toward better understanding and valuing of the cultures that underpin research in HE. We don’t need all the answers for 2029, but we shouldn’t discard the tangible progress made through national conversations and collaborations.

    This evidence base provides a foundation for informed decisions about whether and how to proceed. The question is whether policymakers will use it to build on promising foundations or retreat to assessment approaches that miss crucial dimensions of research excellence.

    The REF pause is a moment of choice. We can step back from culture as ‘too hard’, or build on the most substantial sector-wide collaboration ever undertaken on research environments. If we discard what we’ve built, we risk losing sight of the people and conditions that make UK research excellent.

    Source link

  • KEF deserves a boost | Wonkhe

    KEF deserves a boost | Wonkhe

    The Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) is excellent in all kinds of ways.

    It eschews the competitiveness of league tables. It provides a multi-faceted look at everything that is going on in the world of knowledge exchange. And it is nuanced in comparing similar kinds of institutions.

    KEF is not overly bureaucratic and it is helpful for universities in understanding where they might improve their knowledge exchange work.

    It is a shame then that the release of the KEF dashboard is not as big a day for the sector as something like REF or even TEF.

    Keep on KEFing on

    The KEF is the friend that would help you move house even if it isn’t the first one you would call for a gossip. It is nice, it is helpful, it is realistic on what is and isn’t working. In the very kindest way possible it is straightforward.

    The problem is that the nuance of the KEF doesn’t make for sensational coverage. There isn’t an up and down narrative, there aren’t really winners and losers, and of course there is no funding attached. It is a mirror to the world of knowledge exchange that simply shows what is going on.

    And if you dig deep enough the stories are good. Queen Mary University of London is doing a superb job at IP and commercialisation as well as public and community engagement all the while generating £760m of GVA. Birmingham Newman University is playing a significant role in local growth and regeneration through partnerships, placements, collaborations and consultancy. While the University of Plymouth has one of the most complete radar diagrams with a distinct focus on its maritime work.

    Every single event about how the sector promotes its value discusses the need for universities to have a better story about their places, economic impact, and the tangible impact they make on people’s lives. The KEF is a single source of hundreds of such stories, but somehow it is not cutting through.

    Perhaps, one of the reasons is because the consequences of doing badly (whatever badly means in the context of KEF) is very little. It is not the public shaming tool of the TEF, it is not the funding mechanism of REF, and it doesn’t attract very much media attention. It could have been so different. As Jo Johnson, then Science Minister, said at the launch of KEF

    Our ambition is that the new KEF will become an important public indicator of how good a job universities are doing at discharging their third mission, just as the REF rewards excellence in research and the TEF rewards excellence in teaching and student outcomes.

    The KEF does not reward anything, but it could (yes – its constituent parts are linked to HEIF but that isn’t quite the same thing.)

    My favourite gains

    Another model of funding distribution is possible. One of the major concerns about the REF is that it is becoming too complex. REF measures inputs and outputs, it looks at impact but not in the same way as KEF, and there is also the ongoing debate about People, Culture, and Environment, as a measure of research excellence.

    To make the REF more manageable and make the KEF more meaningful perhaps it is time to add funding consequences to KEF and just shift the pressure a little bit. Previously, I have made the argument that one way of doing this would be to rationalise all of the funding mechanisms that bump into KEF:

    As a starting point it would be sensible to rationalise HEIF allocations and KEF measurements. Without getting into the weeds at this stage a joint data set would likely draw from an enhanced HE-BCI survey, Innovate UK income, research income, journal data, and non-credit bearing course data from the Office for Students. The most straightforward way would be either to dispense with HEIF entirely and allocate the whole pot to KEF with a strengthened self-assessment element, like in REF, or use KEF as the sole basis for HEIF allocations. This would avoid both double counting funds and reduce administrative burden.

    Given the government agenda around universities and economic contribution now might be the time to consider going further.

    One measure could be to allocate a proper funding formula to KEF. In keeping with the spirit of KEF each university would still be organised into a cluster, ensuring like for like is being compared, and funding would be allocated on a formula basis depending on their contribution to each of the seven areas. Each area would not have to receive the same level of funding. Instead, the government could vary it from time to time depending on national priorities or alternatively universities could (in advance) make a pitch for their own growth priorities ensuring they devote energy to and are rewarded for where their strengths lie. This would also help with greater specialisation.

    Simultaneously, the government could add in a more dynamic competition element that is tied to funding. For example, given the state of the economy it might make sense to provide greater reward for the institutions contributing to local growth and innovation. This then becomes a whole new kind of funding route with funding to support the things universities are good at and a gentle nudge toward the things government wish them to do.

    Something changed

    The trade-offs, and the arguments, would of course be significant. In a world of fiscal constraint one of the trade-offs would be reducing funding allocated through REF or through grants in order to fund KEF.

    Reducing funding through REF may help to reduce some pressure on it but it isn’t clear that reducing the pot for exploratory research would be a net economic good in the long-term. Reducing grant funding would mean simply trading off one lever to direct research activity for another.

    Simultaneously, adding in funding allocations to KEF would undoubtedly make it into a more high-pressure exercise which would then attract costs as universities looked to maximise their returns. The exercise would need to be carefully managed to, as far as possible, rely on public data and limited returns.

    Nonetheless, it seems to be a wasted opportunity to have an exercise which is primed for measuring engagements between universities and wider society and economy, at precisely the time there seems to be a consensus this is a good idea, but with few levers to enhance this work. The benefit of looking at a funding allocation toward KEF could be a greater spread of providers rewarded for their work, greater focus on growth and social contribution, and greater attention on the work universities do alongside research and teaching.

    The road to a new kind of KEF is long. However, if the debate about REF has taught us anything, it’s that trying to change a single exercise is exceptionally hard. If the current arrangements feel tired, and reform feels piecemeal, perhaps now is the time to look at the whole ecosystem and look at a system which prizes universities third mission as much as their other work.

    Source link

  • 10+ Years of Lasting Impact and Local Commitment

    10+ Years of Lasting Impact and Local Commitment

    Over 60,000 students have benefited from the math program built on how the brain naturally learns

    A new analysis shows that students using ST Math at Phillips 66-funded schools are achieving more than twice the annual growth in math performance compared to their peers. A recent analysis by MIND Research Institute, which included 3,240 students in grades 3-5 across 23 schools, found that this accelerated growth gave these schools a 12.4 percentile point advantage in spring 2024 state math rankings.

    These significant outcomes are the result of a more than 10-year partnership between Phillips 66 and MIND Research Institute. This collaboration has brought ST Math, created by MIND Education, the only PreK–8 supplemental math program built on the science of how the brain learns, fully funded to 126 schools, 23 districts, and more than 60,000 students nationwide. ST Math empowers students to explore, make sense of, and build lasting confidence in math through visual problem-solving.

    “Our elementary students love JiJi and ST Math! Students are building perseverance and a deep conceptual understanding of math while having fun,” said Kim Anthony, Executive Director of Elementary Education, Billings Public Schools. “By working through engaging puzzles, students are not only fostering a growth mindset and resilience in problem-solving, they’re learning critical math concepts.”

    The initiative began in 2014 as Phillips 66 sought a STEM education partner that could deliver measurable outcomes at scale. Since then, the relationship has grown steadily, and now, Phillips 66 funds 100% of the ST Math program in communities near its facilities in California, Washington, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey. Once involved, schools rarely leave the program.

    To complement the in-class use of ST Math, Phillips 66 and MIND introduced Family Math Nights. These events, hosted at local schools, bring students, families, and Phillips 66 employee volunteers together for engaging, hands-on activities. The goal is to build math confidence in a fun, interactive setting and to equip parents with a deeper understanding of the ST Math program and new tools to support their child’s learning at home.

    “At Phillips 66, we believe in building lasting relationships with the communities we serve,” said Courtney Meadows, Manager of Social Impact at Phillips 66. “This partnership is more than a program. It’s a decade of consistent, community-rooted support to build the next generation of thinkers and improve lives through enriching educational experiences.”

    ST Math has been used by millions of students across the country and has a proven track record of delivering a fundamentally different approach to learning math. Through visual and interactive puzzles, the program breaks down math’s abstract language barriers to benefit all learners, including English Learners, Special Education students, and Gifted and Talented students.

    “ST Math offers a learning experience that’s natural, intuitive, and empowering—while driving measurable gains in math proficiency,” said Brett Woudenberg, CEO of MIND Education. “At MIND, we believe math is a gateway to brighter futures. We’re proud to partner with Phillips 66 in expanding access to high-quality math learning for thousands of students in their communities.”

    Explore how ST Math is creating an impact in Phillips 66 communities with this impact story: https://www.mindeducation.org/success-story/brazosport-isd-texas/

    About MIND Education
    MIND Education engages, motivates and challenges students towards mathematical success through its mission to mathematically equip all students to solve the world’s most challenging problems. MIND is the creator of ST Math, a pre-K–8 visual instructional program that leverages the brain’s innate spatial-temporal reasoning ability to solve mathematical problems; and InsightMath, a neuroscience-based K-6 curriculum that transforms student learning by teaching math the way every brain learns so all students are equipped to succeed. Since its inception in 1998, MIND Education and ST Math has served millions and millions of students across the country. Visit MINDEducation.org.

    About Phillips 66
    Phillips 66 (NYSE: PSX) is a leading integrated downstream energy provider that manufactures, transports and markets products that drive the global economy. The company’s portfolio includes Midstream, Chemicals, Refining, Marketing and Specialties, and Renewable Fuels businesses. Headquartered in Houston, Phillips 66 has employees around the globe who are committed to safely and reliably providing energy and improving lives while pursuing a lower-carbon future. For more information, visit phillips66.com or follow @Phillips66Co on LinkedIn.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • The Shrinking Research University Business Model

    The Shrinking Research University Business Model

    For most of the past 30 or so years, big Canadian universities have all been working off more or less the same business model: find areas where you can make big profits and use those profits to make yourself more research-intensive.

    That’s it. That’s the whole model.

    International students? Big profit centres. Professional programs? You better believe those are money-makers. Undergraduate studies – well, they might not make that much money in toto but holy moly first-year students are taken advantage of quite hideously to subsidize other activities, most notably research-intensity.

    Just to be clear, when I talk about “research-intensity”, I am not really talking about laboratories or physical infrastructure. I am talking about the entire financial superstructure that allows profs to teach 2 courses per semester and to be paid at rates which are comparable to those at (generally better-funded) large public research universities in the US. It’s about compensation, staffing complements, the whole shebang – everything that allows our institutions to compete internationally for research talent. Governments don’t pay enough, directly, for institutions to do that. So, universities have found ways to offer new products, or re-arrange the products they offer, in such a way as to support these goals of competitive hiring.

    Small universities do not have quite the same imperatives with respect to research, but this business model affects them nonetheless. To the extent that they wish to compete for staff with the research-intensive institutions, they have to pay higher salaries as well. Maybe the most extreme outcome of that arms race occurred at Laurentian, whose financial collapse was at least in part due to the university implicitly trying to align itself to U15 universities’ pay scales rather than, say, the pay scale at Lakehead (unions, which like to write ambitious pay “comparables” into institutional collective agreements, are obviously also a factor here).

    Anyways, the issue is that for one reason or another, governments have been chipping away at these various sources of profit that have been used to cross-subsidize research-intensity. The situation with international students is an obvious one, but this is happening in other ways too. Professional master’s degrees are not generating the returns they used to as private universities, both foreign and domestic, begin to compete, particularly in the business sector. (A non-trivial part of the reason that Queen’s found itself in financial difficulty last year was because its business school didn’t turn a profit for the first time in years. I don’t know the ins and outs of this, but I would be surprised if Northeastern’s aggressive push into Toronto wasn’t eating some of its executive education business). 

    Provincial governments – some of them, anyway – are also setting up colleges to compete with universities in a number of areas for undergraduate students. In Ontario, that has been going on for 20-25 years, but in other places like Nova Scotia it is just beginning. Some on the university side complain about these programs, primarily in polytechnics, being preferred by government because they are “cheap”, but they rarely get into specifics about quality. One reason college programs are often better on a per-dollar measure? The colleges aren’t building in a surplus to pay for research-intensity – this is precisely what allows them to do revolutionary things like not stuffing 300 first-year students in a single classroom.  

    In brief then: the feds have taken away a huge source of cross-subsidy. Provinces, to varying degrees (most prominently in Ontario), have been introducing competition to chip-away at other sources of surplus that allowed universities to cross-subsidize research intensity. Together, these two processes are putting the long-standing business model of big Canadian universities at risk.

    The whole issue of cross-subsidization raises two policy questions which are not often discussed in polite company – in Canada, at least. The first has to do with cross-subsidization and whether it is the correct policy or not. I suspect there is a strong majority among higher education’s interested public that think it probably is a good policy; we just don’t know for sure because the policy emerged, as so many Canadian policies do, through a process of extreme passive-aggressiveness. Institutions were mad at governments for not directly funding what they wanted to do, so they went off and did their own thing. Governments, grateful not to be harassed for money, said nothing, which institutions took for approval whereas in fact it was just (temporary) non-disapproval. 

    (I should add here – precisely because of all the passive-aggressiveness – it is not 100% clear to me the extent to which provincial governments understand the implications of introducing competition. When they allow new private or college degree programs, they likely think “we are improving options for students” not “I wonder how this might degrade the ability of institutions to conduct research”. And, of course, the reason they don’t think that is precisely because Canadians achieve everything through passive-aggression rather than open policy debates which might illuminate choices and trade-offs. Yay, us.)

    The second policy question – which we really never ever raise – is whether or not research-intensity, as it is practiced in Canadian universities, is worth subsidizing in the first place. I know, you’re all reading that in shock and horror because what is a university if it is not about research? Well, that’s a pretty partial view, and historically, a pretty recent one.  Even among the U15, there are several institutions whose commitment to being big research enterprises is less than 40 years old. And, of course, we already have plenty of universities (e.g. the Maple League) where research simply isn’t a focus – what’s to say the current balance of research-intensive to non-research-intensive universities is the correct one?

    Now add the following thought: if the country clearly doesn’t think that university research matters because the knowledge economy doesn’t matter and we should all be out there hewing wood and drawing water, and if the federal government not only chops the budget 2024 promises on research but then also cuts deeply into existing budgets, what compelling policy reason is there to keep arranging our universities the way we do?  Why not get off the cross-subsidization treadmill and think of ways of spending money on actually improving undergraduate education (which the sector always claims to be doing, but isn’t much, really).

    I am not, of course, advocating this as a course of policy. But given the way both the politics of research universities and the economics of their business models are heading, we might need to start discussing this stuff. Maybe even openly, for a change.

    Source link

  • New research highlights the importance and challenges of K-12 student engagement

    New research highlights the importance and challenges of K-12 student engagement

    This press release originally appeared online.

    Key points:

    While there is wide agreement that student engagement plays a vital role in learning, educators continue to face uncertainty about what engagement looks like, how best to measure it, and how to sustain it, according to a new study from Discovery Education. 

    Education Insights 2025–2026: Fueling Learning Through Engagement captures prevailing attitudes and beliefs on the topic of engagement from 1,398 superintendents, teachers, parents, and students from across the United States. Survey data was collected in May 2025 by Hanover Research on behalf of Discovery Education. 

    “Discovery Education conducted the Education Insights report to gain a deeper understanding of how engagement is defined, observed, and nurtured in K-12 classrooms nationwide, and we are thankful to the participants who shared their perspectives and insights with us,” said Brian Shaw, Discovery Education’s Chief Executive Officer. “One of the most important findings of this report is that engagement is seen as essential to learning, but is inconsistently defined, observed, and supported in K-12 classrooms. I believe this highlights the need for a more standardized approach to measuring student engagement and connecting it to academic achievement. Discovery Education has embarked on an effort to address those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as our work progresses.” 

    Key findings of the Education Insights 2025–2026: Fueling Learning Through Engagement report include: 

    Engagement is broadly recognized as a key driver of learning and success. Ninety-three percent of educators surveyed agreed that student engagement is a critical metric for understanding overall achievement, and 99 percent of superintendents polled believe student engagement is one of the top predictors of success at school. Finally, 92 percent of students said that engaging lessons make school more enjoyable. 

    But educators disagree on the top indicators of engagement. Seventy-two percent of teachers rated asking thoughtful questions as the strongest indicator of student engagement. However, 54 percent of superintendents identified performing well on assessments as a top engagement indicator. This is nearly twice as high as teachers, who rank assessments among the lowest indicators of engagement. 

    School leaders and teachers disagree on if their schools have systems for measuring engagement. While 99 percent of superintendents and 88 percent of principals said their district has an intentional approach for measuring engagement, only 60 percent of teachers agreed. Further, nearly one-third of teachers said that a lack of clear, shared definitions of student engagement is a top challenge to measuring engagement effectively. 

    Educators and students differ on their perceptions of engagement levels. While 63 percent of students agreed with the statement “Students are highly engaged in school,” only 45 percent of teachers and 51 percent of principals surveyed agreed with the same statement.  

    Students rate their own engagement much higher than their peers. Seventy percent of elementary students perceived themselves as engaged, but only 42 percent perceived their peers as engaged. Fifty-nine percent of middle school students perceived themselves engaged in learning, but only 36 percent perceived their peers as engaged. Finally, 61 percent of high school students perceived themselves as engaged, but only 39 percent described their peers as engaged. 

    Proximity to learning changes impressions of AI. Two-thirds of students believe AI could help them learn faster, yet fewer than half of teachers report using AI themselves to complete tasks. Only 57 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “I frequently learn about positive ways students are using AI,” while 87 percent of principals and 98 percent of superintendents agree. Likewise, only 53 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “I am excited about the potential for AI to support teaching and learning,” while 83 percent of principals and 94 percent of superintendents agreed. 

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Prioritizing behavior as essential learning

    Prioritizing behavior as essential learning

    Key points:

    In classrooms across the country, students are mastering their ABCs, solving equations, and diving into science. But one essential life skill–behavior–is not in the lesson plan. For too long, educators have assumed that children arrive at school knowing how to regulate emotions, resolve conflict, and interact respectfully. The reality: Behavior–like math or reading–must be taught, practiced, and supported.

    Today’s students face a mounting crisis. Many are still grappling with anxiety, disconnection, and emotional strain following the isolation and disruption of the COVID pandemic. And it’s growing more serious.

    Teachers aren’t immune. They, too, are managing stress and emotional overload–while shouldering scripted curricula, rising expectations, and fewer opportunities for meaningful engagement and critical thinking. As these forces collide, disruptive behavior is now the leading cause of job-related stress and a top reason why 78 percent of teachers have considered leaving the profession.

    Further complicating matters is social media and device usage. Students and adults alike have become deeply reliant on screens. Social media and online socialization–where interactions are often anonymous and less accountable–have contributed to a breakdown in conflict resolution, empathy, and recognition of nonverbal cues. Widespread attachment to cell phones has significantly disrupted students’ ability to regulate emotions and engage in healthy, face-to-face interactions. Teachers, too, are frequently on their phones, modeling device-dependent behaviors that can shape classroom dynamics.

    It’s clear: students can’t be expected to know what they haven’t been taught. And teachers can’t teach behavior without real tools and support. While districts have taken well-intentioned steps to help teachers address behavior, many initiatives rely on one-off training without cohesive, long-term strategies. Real progress demands more–a districtwide commitment to consistent, caring practices that unify educators, students, and families.

    A holistic framework: School, student, family

    Lasting change requires a whole-child, whole-school, whole-family approach. When everyone in the community is aligned, behavior shifts from a discipline issue to a core component of learning, transforming classrooms into safe, supportive environments where students thrive and teachers rediscover joy in their work. And when these practices are reinforced at home, the impact multiplies.

    To help students learn appropriate behavior, teachers need practical tools rather than abstract theories. Professional development, tiered supports, targeted interventions, and strategies to build student confidence are critical. So is measuring impact to ensure efforts evolve and endure.

    Some districts are leading the way, embracing data-driven practices, evidence-based strategies, and accessible digital resources. And the results speak for themselves. Here are two examples of successful implementations.

    Evidence-based behavior training and mentorship yields 24 percent drop in infractions within weeks

    With more than 19,000 racially diverse students across 24 schools east of Atlanta, Newton County Schools prioritized embedded practices and collaborative coaching over rigid compliance. Newly hired teachers received stipends to complete curated, interactive behavior training before the school year began. They then expanded on these lessons during orientation with district staff, deepening their understanding.

    Once the school year started, each new teacher was partnered with a mentor who provided behavior and academic guidance, along with regular classroom feedback. District climate specialists also offered further support to all teachers to build robust professional learning communities.

    The impact was almost immediate. Within the first two weeks of school, disciplinary infractions fell by 24 percent compared to the previous year–evidence that providing the right tools, complemented by layered support and practical coaching, can yield swift, sustainable results.

    Pairing shoulder coaching with real-time data to strengthen teacher readiness

    With more than 300,000 students in over 5,300 schools spanning urban to rural communities, Clark County School District in Las Vegas is one of the largest and most diverse in the nation.

    Recognizing that many day-to-day challenges faced by new teachers aren’t fully addressed in college training, the district introduced “shoulder coaching.” This mentorship model pairs incoming teachers with seasoned colleagues for real-time guidance on implementing successful strategies from day one.

    This hands-on approach incorporates videos, structured learning sessions, and continuous data collection, creating a dynamic feedback loop that helps teachers navigate classroom challenges proactively. Rather than relying solely on reactive discipline, educators are equipped with adaptable strategies that reflect lived classroom realities. The district also uses real-time data and teacher input to evolve its behavior support model, ensuring educators are not only trained, but truly prepared.

    By aligning lessons with the school performance plan, Clark County School District was able to decrease suspensions by 11 percent and discretionary exclusions by 17 percent.  

    Starting a new chapter in the classroom

    Behavior isn’t a side lesson–it’s foundational to learning. When we move beyond discipline and make behavior a part of daily instruction, the ripple effects are profound. Classrooms become more conducive to learning. Students and families develop life-long tools. And teachers are happier in their jobs, reducing the churn that has grown post-pandemic.

    The evidence is clear. School districts that invest in proactive, strategic behavior supports are building the kind of environments where students flourish and educators choose to stay. The next chapter in education depends on making behavior essential. Let’s teach it with the same care and intentionality we bring to every other subject–and give every learner the chance to succeed.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The incentives don’t work they just make growth worse

    The incentives don’t work they just make growth worse

    The UK’s economy looks particularly bad at the moment.

    There is a Jeremy Hunt view of the world that while the UK is in a muddle with its money the foundations are strong. After all, the UK is still one of the world’s largest economies. There is the City AM view that the UK is in many ways fundamentally broken. And, there is the Resolution Foundation that predicts that many households will endure another decade of lost earnings.

    The UK’s particular malaise is manifold. The IFS talks about it as a result of “Low investment, policy mistakes, political instability, and Brexit,” (Covid didn’t help either). The result is what former LSE president and now advisor to Keir Starmer Minouche Shafik and founder of the Resolution Foundation Clive Cowdery have called a “toxic combination of low growth and high inequality.” Their view is stagnation is because of low records of investment in staff by business, regional inequalities, and the overplaying of the UK’s manufacturing strengths at the expense of its actual strengths in services.

    New advisor old problems

    As the country has ambled through its decade and more of low growth the university sector has expanded rapidly. As I wrote about in a paper for the Post-18 Project this presents a fundamental problem for people like me that believe in the economic utility of universities.

    The best version of the story is that universities have genuinely transformed the economic fortunes of some parts of the country, if not the entire country. A recent Centre for Cities report suggests there are some places that have become more prosperous through all the economic goods a university attracts to their place including students, knowledge workers, and some kinds of innovation.

    The second sunniest version is that the country would be in an even greater mess were it not for its universities. The gloomiest picture is that despite the enormous amount of additional public funding, increases in turnover, new research schemes, capital builds, and other fiscal levers, universities have not been able to get the country out of its fiscal funk.

    The rejoinder to this is that universities don’t just exist for reasons of economic utility. The problem is, as Jane Robinson has pointed out for Wonkhe, university’s social contract and the funding that flows to them is increasingly about how they choose to invest, the partnerships they build, the ways in which they grow their economies, and their role in regional development. Their ability to meet the challenges Shafik and Cowdery have set out is the bargain for further funding.

    This is fair enough. It is unreasonable for universities to expect more public funding in a tight economy without offering something in return. The problem is the things that universities are doing are often going under the radar and the things they might do better are often beyond their control.

    It’s not that universities don’t want to contribute to economic growth, it is that it is hard and government policy often makes it harder. To demonstrate, let’s consider Shafik’sand Cowdery’s triangle of growth; skills (as a key part of productivity), regions, and maximising the UK’s strengths.

    Start, stop, go

    Universities generally produce people with the skills the economy needs. They do not produce as many people with the skills the economy needs at pre-degree level, because the curriculum is usually built around undergraduate degree level qualification, but there is no other game in town when it comes to producing the graduate workers an economy requires.

    Universities will probably never provide all the sheet metal workers the country requires or fill the massive gaps in the care system but they will provide a good number of the nuclear physicists, programmers, engineers, lawyers, accountants, and managers the industrial strategy requires.

    The problem is that universities have almost no incentive to teach the things that the industrial strategy says the country needs. They may do so for academic reasons, civic good, inertia, research profile, specialism, or something else, but teaching the future home students in high-cost programmes is the exact opposite way any sensible university financial planner would arrange their portfolio of programmes. Programmes at pre-degree level have students for less time on them, with a less obvious market, and comparable individual unit costs. An even worse deal.

    To look at this another way the university which aimed solely to meet the needs of their local and national labour markets would have to ignore the financial reality they exist within. My own view is that on narrow economic terms it’s a good thing universities teach broad based curricula because the labour market is unpredictable and benefits from a range of skilled people to draw upon. The government view is that it’s not only necessary to entirely reform the skills pipeline but to provide more specific skills in AI, engineering, cyber, and other STEM related fields.

    The government has therefore created a misalignment between financial incentives and the labour market outcomes they are trying to achieve. To address this the government could increase university funding generally through strategic grants (probably not going to happen), boost other forms of income through relaxing visa regulations (absolutely not going to happen,) or improve incentives to teach home students in high cost programmes (we might get some inflationary fee increases).

    The alternative is to recognise that an entirely student demand led model is going to lead to some skills gaps. Various attempts to nudge students into certain qualifications (remember the adverts on cyber?) don’t seem to have made an awful lot of difference. Through the Post-18 project my co-authors and I argued that some HE provision could be commissioned:

    The Devolution Bill should make provision for mayoral combined authorities to convene a post-18 education and skills provision group with a diversity of provider and industry representation that can draw on the insight from regional growth insight centres to develop post-18 pathways, provision and partnerships. These groups could initially propose business cases for reprofiling of funding but over time could be given direct commissioning powers and/or direct injections of public funding to catalyse new provision aligned to national or regional economic growth priorities.

    The government can find ways of boosting or redirecting teaching resources or the country, in the long term, can have fewer graduates in high-cost degrees. There is no path to more students studying more expensive things in line with government priorities without resources to do so.

    Regions

    Regional growth is another area where the incentives make absolutely no sense. The UK is unusually imbalanced where second cities are comparably unproductive to many other large economies. One way in which to rebalance economies is to increase investment and the supply of skilled human capital.

    The single most important measure of skilled human capital in the university sector is Graduate Outcomes. Graduate Outcomes measure whether a student is in highly-skilled employment fifteen months after they graduate. Universities are regulated and placed in league tables based on this metric. The incentive for universities is to place their graduates where there are the highest number of available highly skilled jobs which is London. Even building a spin-out outside of London only gives a 6/10 chance the spin-out won’t migrate to the capital anyway.

    Universities do not have golden handcuffs to their places and the economic geography of London can too easily pull their economic goods away. Research excellence and impact is not measured on a regional footprint. Infrastructure investment does not follow where there is the greatest latent potential. There is astoundingly little policy that is place sensitive.

    In supporting the UK’s strengths universities are not often the primary beneficiaries of the economic growth they support. There is lots of stick for them to do good economic things but the carrots for supporting growth, particularly in local economies, tend to be the odd grant and bit of underspend like the Regional Innovation Fund. The government cannot be surprised about investment and talent flight where regional educational incentives are non-existent.

    Leave alone

    It can feel like the role of universities in the economy is both over- and understated. On the one hand they are not designed to, never will, and should not be expected to solve every problem with the economy.

    They will not bring back manufacturing, they will not rebalance regions on their own, and they will not fill all of the gaps in the labour market. At the same time they do a lot of good stuff as employers, innovators, anchors, coalition builders, contributing to clusters, attracting knowledge workers, and through educating students.

    The bit where the incentives do work is producing students for the knowledge economy. The part of the UK’s economy that has grown as manufacturing has declined. Universities have a reliable (if not predictable) income, their graduate outcomes are regulated (how well is a different question), and parts of the economy make good use of their graduate skills. If university marketing departments are to be believed this good employment is also one of their major selling points which through student recruitment then puts more funding back into the system. The incentives just line up a bit better.

    The problem is that universities are not only not always supported to get on with the job but they aren’t left alone to do so. It would perhaps be too much to hope for but welcome that the reshuffle leads to clear direction on what universities are expected (or maybe even regulated or incentivised to do) in the local economy, recognition for their national role and how they will continue to be supported to do so, and a clear sense of where they will be given a little boost but mostly left alone to keep doing the good things they are doing.

    Refiring the economy does not have to be about doing new things. It might be about doing old things in a more joined up, properly funded, and regionally focussed way. As growth goes to the top of the agenda, let’s not forget the work universities are already doing.

    Source link

  • The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2025

    The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2025

    Hi all. Today, HESA is releasing the eighth edition of The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, co-authored by myself and HESA’s Jiwoo Jeon and Janet Balfour. Many thanks to our partners – Pearson, Studiosity, Duolingo, Capio, Element451 and Riipen – for supporting this year’s edition.

    You probably don’t need to actually read this year’s edition to know that the state of postsecondary education in Canada is a bit perilous. And the reason for this, quite simply, is that public funding for higher education has been stagnant for well over a decade now.

    At one level, of course, it is possible to look at public funding in Canada and proclaim that nothing is wrong. As Figure 1 shows, public spending on higher education has stayed relatively constant over the past fifteen years in inflation-adjusted dollars. Individual provinces may have seen swings up or down in their spending, but collectively the ten provinces have spent a collective $20 billion/year or so on higher education since about 2011-12 (excluding transfer payments from the federal government), and the federal government has spent about $10 billion/year. 

    Figure 1: Federal and Provincial Own-Source Expenditures in Respect of PSE Institutions, Canada, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24, in Billions

    So, at one level it is possible to shrug off the problem.  But that requires eliminating a lot of context.  Let’s see how Canadian funding looks when we put it into various types of contexts.

    If we describe public funding in per-student terms, as in Figure 2, what you see is a mixed picture. Total public funding per full-time equivalent domestic student has dropped by about 6% since 2009, and for university students by about 15%. Complicating this figure is the fact that per-student funding for college students has risen somewhat, however, this is due not to extra funding but rather to a very significant drop in the number of domestic students enrolled in colleges. Whether this is due to a reduction of interest in college programs among Canadians, or a deliberate move away from Canadian to international students on the part of colleges is difficult to answer, but in either event, the rise in funding per college student is a function of fewer students rather than more funding.

    Figure 2: Per-student Spending by Sector, Canada, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    If we describe public funding as a percentage of the country’s economy, the picture looks significantly worse. Prior to the recession of 2008-09, public funding on postsecondary education was about 1.3% of GDP, which was substantially above the level seen across other industrialized countries (about 1.0%, according to the OECD). Briefly, that number popped up during the Great Recession, partly because spending increased but also partly because GDP stagnated. Since then, however, spending has stayed constant while GDP has grown. The result is that public spending on postsecondary has fallen to the OECD average of 1% – and the financial advantage our system once held over competitor nations has largely disappeared.

    Figure 3: Public Spending on Postsecondary Education as a Percentage of GDP, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    We can also look at these figures in per-inhabitant terms. There was a point in the late 00s where Canada had about 33 million inhabitants and public sources spent $30 billion per year on postsecondary education. Fifteen years and seven million new inhabitants later, we’re still spending $30 billion per year.  That results in a 21% reduction in spending on universities and colleges per inhabitant from public sources, as shown in Figure 4. In Figure 5, we look at postsecondary spending as a percentage of government budgets.  Again, we see a case of spending on postsecondary institutions falling consistently because overall government expenditure is rising quickly. In the past fifteen years, aggregate provincial spending on postsecondary has fallen as a percentage of total provincial expenditures from 5.4% to just 3.3%; for federal spending it has fallen from 1.6% to just 1%.

    Figure 4: Public Spending on Post-Secondary Education Institutions Per Inhabitant, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    Figure 5: Public Spending on Postsecondary Education Institutions as a Percentage of Total Government Spending, Federal and Provincial Governments, in $2023, 2007-08 to 2023-24

    In other words: we have been able – just — to keep our public investments in higher education level with inflation.  But we have only been able to do so because our population is larger, and our economy has grown over the last fifteen years, and we can do so with less relative effort.  Had we kept up funding on a domestic per-student level with where it was in the immediate aftermath of the Great Financial crisis, post-secondary education system would have an extra $2.1 billion. If we had kept funding on postsecondary education level with overall population growth we would have invested another $7.3 billion.  If we’d had funding for postsecondary institutions level with GDP growth we would have invested another $13.6 billion. And if we had kept it level with the overall growth in program spending, we would have invested another $19.1 billion. So, depending on the measure chosen, we are anywhere from $2-20 billion short of where we would be had we kept our spending levels of the late 00s/early 10s.

    But, you say, isn’t this true everywhere? And aren’t we at least better than the United States?

    It is certainly true that Canada is in a pattern that would seem familiar both to residents of Australia and the United Kingdom. These three countries have all followed roughly the same path over the past decade and a half, combining stagnant public funding with slightly growing domestic numbers, paid for by an absolute free-for-all with respect to international students paying market tuition rates. All three countries looked like they had made a good deal at least for as long as the international student boom lasted.

    But take a look at our biggest competitor, the United States. During the financial crisis of 2008-9, funding for postsecondary institutions tumbled by over 10%.  But then, in just the eight years between 2012 and 2020, funding for higher education grew by a third – from about $150B (US) per year to over $200B/year. In fact, for all we hear about cuts to funding under Trump (not all of which may come true, as at the time of writing the Senate seems quite intent at least on reversing the billions of proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health), even if all the proposed cuts were to come through, total US spending on  higher education would be roughly 20% higher than it was in 2008-09, while Canada’s would be more or less unchanged. And of course, in the United States domestic enrolments are falling, meaning that in per- student terms, the gap is even more substantial. 

    Figure 6: Indexed Real Public Spending on Postsecondary Institutions, Canada vs. US, 2011-12 to 2023-24 (2011-12 = 100)

    In sum: Canada is not alone in seeing significant falls in higher education spending, but few countries have seen declines in quite as an across-the-board fashion, for quite as long, as we have. Canada began the 2010s with one of the best-funded tertiary education systems in the world, but, quite simply, governments of every stripe at both the federal and provincial levels have been systematically squandering that advantage for the past 15 years. We had a genuine lead in something, an advantage over the rest of the world. But now it is gone.

    So much for the past: what about the future?  Well, it depends a bit on where you stand.  The federal Liberals came back to power on a platform which was the least science-friendly since 1988. They promised money for postsecondary education, but most of it was either for apprenticeship grant programs which they themselves had deemed poor value for money just last year, or for programs to switch apprenticeship training from public colleges to union-led training centres – as crass a piece of cash-for-union endorsements as one can imagine. (The only saving grace? The losing Conservatives promised the unions even larger bribes). What they promised for science, for direct transfers to public universities and colleges, was a pittance in comparison.

    Moreover, following the election, in the face of a set of tariff threats from the Trump Administration, the federal and provincial governments united in a program of “nation-building” which revolved entirely around the notion that national salvation was to be found in programs which “produced more goods” and “gets them to markets” (i.e. non-US markets, meaning ports) more quickly. The idea that the country might pivot to services, to a more knowledge-intensive economy in which university and college research efforts might be seen as useful, was apparently not even considered. Rather, the country rushed head-first into the familiar – but in the long-term disastrous – role being hewers of wood and drawers of water.

    Now, hewing wood and drawing water has traditionally been Canada’s lot, and one could argue that historically have not fared so very badly by focusing on this core competence. But it is worth remembering the Biblical origin of this phrase, in the book of Joshua. A group of Canaanites known as the Gibeonites had not been entirely truthful when signing a treaty with the returning Israelites; claiming to be a nomadic people rather than a settled one (which would have led to them being exterminated).  When the Israelites discovered the deception, many wanted the Gibeonites killed; instead, Joshua decided that they should hew wood and draw water for the Israelites instead. That is to say, they fell into bondage. The political analogies in today’s Trumpian world should be obvious.

    To return to higher education: things look pretty bleak. Investment is falling. Governments are unwilling either to spend more on higher education, or to permit institutions to generate money on their own through tuition fees. Their idea of economic growth is, at best, out of the 1960s: sell more natural resources to foreigners. The idea of making our way in the world as a knowledge or science powerhouse, a spirit that infused policymaking at both the federal and provincial level in the early 2000s, has simply disappeared. Colleges might see some boosts in funding over the coming years for vocational programming, although it’s likely that they will need to scrap with private-sector unions for the money; the likelihood is that universities will see real decreases in funding. The fate of the promised increase in research spending in the 2024 budget seems especially at-risk.

    The path to a better Canada does not lie in becoming better hewers of wood and drawers of water.  It lies in developing new industries based on cutting-edge knowledge and science. Spending on postsecondary students, on its own, does not guarantee that these new industries will come into existence.  But the absence of spending on postsecondary education certainly guarantees that they will not.

    The country has a choice to make. And right now, we seem to be choosing poorly.

    Source link