Putting smart intelligence to work
Published Wednesday July 1st, 2009
How do you define intelligence in the context of a community?
It seems relatively straightforward in the context of an individual as there are standardized tests designed to measure intelligence. At the community level it seems to be more complex. Do we use educational attainment as the best measure of collective intelligence? How about student performance on standardized tests?
I have reviewed two recent attempts to measure intelligence at the community level that tackle the issue from fundamentally different perspectives. The New York-based Intelligent Communities Forum provides a ranking of cities each year based on its definition of intelligence. The Canadian Council on Learning develops its Composite Learning Index for communities across Canada, which Maclean's magazine then uses to decree its "Smartest Cities in Canada."
The Composite Learning Index is supposed to measure Canada's progress in lifelong learning.The council says it is based on statistical indicators that reflect the many ways Canadians learn, whether in school, in the home, at work or within the community. It includes close to third metrics ranging from youth test scores to exposure to sports and museums.
As most of you will know by now, both Fredericton and Moncton were listed among the Intelligent Communities Forum's list of seven most intelligence cities in the world for 2009.
Meanwhile, Maclean's magazine recently singled out Moncton and Trois-Rivières, Que. for their drop on the council's Composite Learning Index. Maclean's intones "many of last year's lowest scores have only gotten worse" and then goes on to mention Moncton and Trois-Rivières by name.
How can this be? How can Moncton be defined as "dumb" by Maclean's magazine and intelligent by the Intelligent Communities Forum? The answer, of course, lies in the methodology.
If you look at the Canadian council's Moncton Composite Learning Index, for example, many of the metrics that are underperforming have a footnote attached to them. When you read the footnote, it states "data only available at the provincial level." Everyone who has ever even set foot in New Brunswick knows there are significant variations in education and skill levels around the province.
Also, the not so smart cities (those with a lower Composite Learning Index score) tend to be those with a lower post-secondary participation rate and with a lower university attainment rate. As a result, cities that don't have a large university presence are not considered to be too bright. Overall, the Composite Learning Index is very biased towards large urban centres.
There is merit in the council's index because it does shine a light on the importance of learning and outlines areas at the community level where there could be improvement. However, Maclean's magazine is just wrong to use this index to determine its list of "smart" cities.
When it comes to defining true community level intelligence, I prefer the Intelligent Communities Forum definition.
When you read the reasons why the forum chose Moncton and Fredericton as top seven intelligent communities, you see that the definition becomes more about intelligent actions than demographic statistics or access to museums.
According to the forum, Moncton is intelligent because it has transformed its economy in less than 20 years into one of the most information and communications technology-based economies in Canada, attracting global companies and fostering high technology entrepreneurship.
According to Maclean's magazine and the Canadian Council on Learning, Moncton is a relatively dumb city because its residents are not "learning from other cultures" or because they are said to have less exposure to the Internet (a statistic that is suspect).
Let me conclude on this point. The intelligent decisions that led to Greater Moncton's economic transformation over the past 15-20 years are creating the conditions that will lead to better rankings on the Composite Learning Index.
The information-based economy is leading to a more educated workforce through increased post-secondary enrolments and the attraction of educated workers from other parts of Canada. The strong economy is leading to more immigration, which will lead to the ability to learn from other cultures. In fact, if you look at the Composite Learning Index metrics, most will improve as a result of strong economic growth over time.
For too long New Brunswick has been the labour market incubator for Ontario and other "have" provinces in Canada. Many of our most talented people leave the region not long after graduation.
If we focus on strengthening our learning environment and ignore our economic development, we will just be ramping up our investment in Ontario's future labour needs.
David Campbell is an economic development consultant based in Moncton. He writes a daily blog, It's the Economy Stupid, at www.davidwcampbell.com.
Disabled
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
