Measuring our success requires indicators and benchmarks, not just in post-secondary education but in all fields. It is for this reason that the provincial government has created accountability measures, such as Key Performance Indicators and Multi-Year Accountability Agreements, to ensure Ontario’s post-secondary institutions measure up. While the current accountability framework is far from perfect, it is generally accepted that we need some sector-wide indicators and benchmarks, not to decide if one institution is better than another, but to ensure none are left behind.
Now let’s take a step back and look at Ontario’s post-secondary sector versus that of peer jurisdictions. For the same reason it is useful to select system-wide indicators within Ontario, there should be agreed upon indicators that allow for inter-jurisdictional comparisons as well.
Canada, unfortunately, has no national strategy for higher education and no common framework for measuring success. Even within Ontario, there has never been an open conversation about how to measure our success against global competitors. As a result, individuals and organizations are left to select their own indicators, often in a way that best supports their own view.
Minister Milloy recently highlighted this issue in an interview (http://www.westerngazette.ca/2010/08/24/post-sec-minister-visits-western/) with the Western Gazette, when asked about Ontario’s comparatively low level of per-student funding.
“I really do take issue with ‘the fun with figures’,” Milloy responded. He explained the comparisons between Ontario and smaller provinces weren’t accurate. “I’m sure Western has more students than some provinces have […] I don’t think you can make those comparisons.”
Personally, I disagree with the Minister’s assertion that per-student funding is not an adequate input measure for inter-jurisdictional comparisons. If large universities do not require the same per student level of funding as small ones, why is the bulk of government funding given out on a per-student basis? And why can OCAD provide a high-quality education on thousands less per student than UPEI, which is roughly the same size? And if economies of scale at large universities result in cost savings such that per-student funding can be lower, why does that same argument not extend to all sources of revenue, such as Ontario tuition, which is the highest in the country?
Whether or not you believe per-student funding is a useful metric, the real issue is the lack of consensus within the sector, even on the most basic and frequently employed measures. With the government developing a new five-year quality plan, we need a starting place if we are to have a meaningful discussion on the future. It is difficult to decide where we hope to be in five years without a consensus on where we are now.
It would be helpful if the government were to start this discussion by releasing a list of indicators that it believes are acceptable for inter-jurisdictional comparison. Discussions of the future will be more productive once we are armed with an idea of where we need to improve.
-Alexi White
Executive Director
