OUSA

While Ontario students apply for and receive financial assistance through the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP), their loan is actually composed of two loans, one from the federal government (Canada Student Loan) and one from the provincial government (Ontario Student Loan). The federal government funds approximately 60 per cent of a student’s loan and the provincial government funds the remaining 40 per cent. Each government estimates a student’s financial need separately through a complex formula that assesses their allowable educational costs and reduces the expected financial resources available to them. These resources include employment income, assets, and family resources. For single students that have been out of high school for four years or less are expected to receive significant contributions from their parents’ income.

The amount that parents are expected to contribute to their children’s education costs is calculated based on family size, income, and the number of post-secondary students in the family. The parents’ discretionary income is calculated by taking the net parental income and subtracting the ‘moderate standard of living’, which is updated annually. The Canada and Ontario assessments use significantly different moderate standards of living. For example, the moderate standard of living for a family of three in 2010-11 is $53,782 according to the Canadian assessment and $43,133 in the Ontario assessment.

After subtracting the moderate standard of living to determine the parents’ ‘Annual Discretionary Income’, a percentage of this figure is set as the weekly parental contribution for the duration of the study period. Again, the formulas differ between the Canada and Ontario assessments. The Canadian government expects parents to contribute 15% of their first $7,000 in discretionary income, while Ontario expects 25% of this income. For the next $7,000, the difference becomes even more apparent, with Canada asking for a contribution of 20% and Ontario asking for a full 50%. Based on these contributions, Canada expects parents to contribute $2,450 of their first $14,000 in discretionary income while Ontario expects $5,250 – more than double that amount. The discrepancy grows even further after $14,000, where the contributions are 40% and 75% respectively.

If the family has two or more dependent children in post-secondary studies, the parental contribution is divided by the number of children in post-secondary studies. Finally, the parental contributions are incorporated into a student’s assessment of financial resources, regardless of whether parents contribute this amount or not.

The following table provides examples of the enormous discrepancies between Ontario and Canada in its expected parental contributions for an average family of three:

Examples of OSAP Parental Contributions for Family of Three, 2010-11

There are some measures in place for students facing family breakdown to be eligible for OSAP assistance without considering their parental income, however the list of acceptable reasons is highly restrictive, for example, physical or sexual abuse documented by a third party. Common reasons for parents not providing financial support to their children are not accepted as grounds to consider students’ OSAP applications without parental income. Examples of reasons not accepted by OSAP include:

• Parents who feel that their children are independent once they reach age 18;
• Parents who do not agree with their child’s choice of program or institution;
• Parents who do not approve of their child’s living arrangement;
• Parents who feel it is the responsibility of the government or child to fund post-secondary education.

Many students in Ontario fall into these examples outlined above, as well as numerous other legitimate reasons. In some cases, this may be due to parents overestimating the amount of financial assistance available to their children, and not accumulating enough savings to meet OSAP’s expected parental contributions. A Statistics Canada study found that 29 per cent of parents with 13 to 18 year-old children expected their child to receive need-based grants, but only 15 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds actually received funds. For children with savings, the average amount saved for them by parents not expecting grants was $10,100, compared to $6,900 for parents who expected their children to receive grants. Considering that most students face annual costs of at least $13,000 per year of their undergraduate degree, clearly parental behaviour is not aligned with the expectations of the financial assistance system.

OUSA has heard this concern countless times from students across Ontario, indicating that this is more than a minor concern from a handful of students. Unfortunately, there is no data available on precisely how many students find themselves in this situation. It is interesting to note though that 51% of Ontario university students reported in 2009 receiving non-repayable funds from a family member to attend university, while 17% reported a loan from a family member. Considering that most students are assumed by the government to be receiving contributions from their parents for their education, there is a significant proportion of students are attending post-secondary education without parental support. Regardless of the number, it is fundamentally irresponsible for the government to allow these students to drop out of school or to take on a potentially crippling level of private debt.

This leaves many students, particularly those from middle-income families, with significant unmet need, and there are indications that these students are increasingly falling through the gaps in the system. Statistics Canada research through the 1990s shows that participation rates for post-secondary education increased for the lowest income category (with incomes below $25,000) and a narrowing of the gap in participation between this demographic and students with family incomes over $100,000. However, at the same time, participation rates for students in middle-income demographics stagnated and showed signs of decline. This finding suggests that financial assistance programs may have been directed to an overly narrow income band, neglecting students from middle-income backgrounds who still struggle with the costs of post-secondary education. Furthermore, some components of the financial assistance system, such as tax credits, provide more assistance to students from higher income backgrounds.

The government should be applauded for taking initial steps to decrease the parental contribution rates five years ago. Nevertheless, the current expectation placed on Ontario’s families is clearly unreasonable. OUSA calls on the government to harmonize its parental contribution formula with the federal government’s formula, which is significantly more generous.

-Sam Andrey
Director of Research & Policy Analysis

OCUFA Teaching Award Winners

Last Saturday, October 23, representatives from OUSA had the pleasure of attending the awards ceremony for the Teaching and Academic Librarianship Awards, conferred annually by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

The awards, presented over lunch at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto, honour faculty who have made exceptional contributions in the areas of instruction, course and curriculum development, and student engagement. A committee of professors, students, and members of the broader university community select the recipients.

This year’s recipients are:

Andrea Buchholz
Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph

Donald Leslie
School of Social Work, University of Windsor

Susan McCahan
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto

Shafique N. Virani
Department of Historical Studies and Study of Religion, University of Toronto Mississauga

Michael J. Wiley
Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto

OUSA wishes to extend its congratulations to all of this year’s recipients for their tireless contribution to teaching and learning, and to OCUFA for ensuring that these deserving individuals are recognized for their achievements.

-Alexi White
Executive Director

TORONTO, Oct. 26 /OUSA/ – Undergraduate students are generally supportive of the government taking a more active role in transforming Ontario’s universities to better balance the system-wide demands for a high-quality and accessible learning environment with the capacity to undertake research. This reaction comes upon review of the report released today by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) calling for greater differentiation in the university sector. This transformation will have a significant impact on students, and great care must be taken to ensure that the impact is positive.

While students do not believe that government should unilaterally determine the mandates of Ontario’s universities, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) supports the use of multi-year accountability agreements to naturally differentiate universities through robust planning for future enrolment growth and institutional priorities, while tying performance to a portion of incremental funding.

“Students are hopeful that the process proposed by HEQCO will ensure a renewed emphasis on teaching and the student experience at our universities, while increasing sustainability, accountability and transparency,” said Meaghan Coker, OUSA President. “We anticipate that the government will follow HEQCO’s example and continue to undertake extensive consultations with students to ensure that these priorities are reflected in any future direction-setting.”

Students have also highlighted several concerns that they have with the process moving forward:

-Past negotiations of multi-year accountability agreements have excluded student input, and OUSA remains adamant that future agreements must include students and the broader campus community.

-In the absence of annual increases to base funding, universities often rely on growth to cover inflationary costs. A proposal in which all growth funding is tied to differentiation would not acknowledge the realities of increasing university costs.

-Increasing differentiation and diversity amongst institutions should not disrupt current progress toward fixing the broken credit transfer system.

-Metrics for university performance have been poorly designed in the past, and the importance of developing effective measurements that focus on student outcomes should not be overlooked.

-While students believe that these new incentives could allow some institutions to place their focus back on the undergraduate teaching mission, students insist that those universities that choose to focus on graduate expansion and research must not be absolved from the responsibility to provide a high-quality undergraduate experience.

Finally, students are concerned that many within the higher education sector view increased differentiation as the silver bullet that will solve the system’s challenges, ignoring concerns about cost inflation and alternative solutions such as transformation of the professoriate and adequate public investment in the valuable research and education missions of Ontario’s universities. Students applaud the government for its continued dedication to building an accessible, affordable, accountable and high-quality post-secondary education system, but stress that realizing this vision will require more leadership and resources than merely encouraging differentiation.

The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance represents the interests of over 140,000 professional and undergraduate, full- and part-time university students at seven Ontario institutions.

Today is the day of the 2010 Municipal Election. Polls across every city have opened and will be running until 8:00pm.

The Municipal Elections Act has made an exception for students to vote in their home municipality and the municipality that they live and study in, and students really don’t have to look very far before realizing the impact that their elected municipal representatives can have on their daily lives.

If you live in a house or an apartment in the city you study in, you should vote. Each municipality has control over the regulation of landlords in their city, affecting the level of safety and service that landlords are required to provide. The ultimate costs of living are also affected by the taxing system administered by your municipality.

If you use public transport or walk or bike to school, then you should vote. The public transportation system offers tremendous service to the student population and it is the municipality’s responsibility to ensure that this service is meeting the time and frequency demands of the public. Also, the municipality has the ability to further invest in trail infrastructure to ensure bike and walking trails are safe and have a well-developed network.

If you think the city you study in can offer more to students than just an academic education, then you should vote. Municipalities have a role in fostering a cultural richness within their communities and can bring more attention towards developing new kinds of industries and opportunities that promote art and culture.

If you will be looking for a job once you graduate, then you should vote. Municipalities can increase their efforts to offer employment opportunities for students and new graduates in their city. There are many reasons as to why a municipality would want to increase student and graduate retention and they must start to make these investments to realize the benefits.

For all of these reasons and many more, students must vote in the municipal election. Regardless of how many meetings your student council representatives have with the mayor or how student-friendly your elected ward representative might be, there is no greater influence than the student population voting in this election.

If students don’t seem to care or refuse to empower themselves in their municipality, it is significantly harder to get the municipality to invest in the needs of students. I challenge students of Ontario to use the power you have. Use the power of ballot and have your voices and issues take priority in the 2010 Municipal Election.

-Meaghan Coker
OUSA President
USC VP University Affairs

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the city, Kingston is very much a university town.  With three higher education institutions – RMC, St. Lawrence College, and Queen’s University – the city of Kingston is often overwhelmed with students.  In other cities of Ontario students represent large portions of the city’s population; without a doubt, students are a part of their city.

Considering I will spend at least four years at Queen’s, I can safely say that Kingston is my home.  I spend the majority of my time in Kingston and I contribute to it culturally, financially, and physically.  The same can be said for any student spending years of their lives attending schools in different cities than their hometown.  As a student I am part of my city and I call my city home.  I will vote in the municipal election this Monday.

Municipal elections have lower voter turnout than federal or provincial elections, but as a student the outcome of municipal elections are extremely important.  The Mayors and Councillors elected will become the authoritative body on many aspects of my life here at Queen’s, big and small.  From event sanctioning to garbage disposal and street clearing, the city of Kingston looks after me.  In exchange for this caretaking, I owe it to my city to be an active and engaged citizen, as do all students to their cities.  More than anything, this means vote.  Voting is fundamentally one of the most significant impacts students can have on their city and it is a citizenship right they should be exercising.

University helps students become active citizens who contribute positively to society.  Voting is a minimal level of contribution.  Every student who has an opinion on city events, garbage disposal, biking bylaws, or noise bylaws should vote.  Even if your concerns are only about students issues, you should vote. Any student wondering why municipal debates rarely mention student issues should vote.  If students show up to vote, we can change the face of elections in Canada.  Student issues will never be left off the table, no matter how small.

No matter how small.  Don’t think of municipal elections as having a small impact; don’t think of your vote as having a small impact.  Your city is your home and your home is of the utmost importance. This Monday please vote.  If you are not sure how, contact your student government, they will know how.  Many have fought for polling stations on campus.  Municipal elections will decide who should run your home for the next four years: don’t you think you should your say?

Voicing my vote on Monday,

Kieran Slobodin
Academic Affairs Commissioner
The Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University

Calling it “well-crafted and comprehensive,” the organization that represents the 24 publicly funded college libraries has expressed support for The Ontario Online Institute: Students’ Vision for Opening Ontario’s Classrooms, OUSA’s recent submission on the future of the Ontario Online Institute.

In a letter from Chair Joy Muller, the Heads of Libraries & Learning Resources (HLLR) endorsed OUSA’s position on the need for robust student supports for online learners, including full access to online library resources.

HLLR envisions the creation of a virtual library that would include licensed databases of journals, full-text e-books, and streamed media resources. It would also include online and telephone assistance, information literacy modules, reference management tools, and inter-library lending.

Ontario’s undergraduate students fully support HLLR’s proposal and share their hope that all critical supports will be in place to ensure that students of the Ontario Online Institute enjoy a successful educational experience.

Click here to read HLLR’s letter of support.

Click here for more on HLLR’s proposal for a virtual library.

Many people remember that when they were children they wanted to be presidents and astronauts.  As lofty as those ambitions were, it still surprises many people that 35% of youth aged 9 have already decided on their educational pathway (university, college, skilled trades, etc.). Early outreach is a combination of disseminating correct information about higher education to students as well as a concerted effort to increase access for groups that for historic, financial, or social reasons are under-represented in higher education.

In my first blog post about early outreach and access, I talked about the factors that influence a youth’s decision when choosing an educational pathway and that some models, like Pathways to Education, are experiencing significant success and other models are not achieving desirable results.  This time around, I want to talk about how what is truly needed is a comprehensive and holistic approach to early outreach, funded by the government and grounded in the communities.  Below is an excerpt from OUSA’s upcoming outreach paper that addresses this point:

A comprehensive outreach strategy does not need to stem from the government.  A degree of freedom should be afforded to individual communities and institutions when it comes to designing outreach programs.  Communities, more so than any other body, have the best idea of the challenges their youth face and how best to overcome them.  Institutions are well advantaged to find and address the barriers under-represented groups face when attending their institution.  The provincial government’s role should be in coordinating and funding these programs.

Early outreach brings to mind the old saying ‘it takes a village.’  It really does.  The Canada Student Survey, among similar research initiatives, found that students base their pathways decision on information gathered from friends, family, guidance counsellors, peers, and community mentors.  For an early outreach strategy to be successful, it must ensure that accurate information and engaging opportunities are available to all parts of student life.  Community methods are the best method to reach students.

It’s for this reason, among others, that Pathways has found its success in reaching out to at-risk students.  It’s for this reason that Contact North, by working out of community centres, has found success in reaching out to rural and northern students.  And it is for this reason that the provincial government should look to the communities and local support networks already in place when designing outreach programs.

Kieran Slobodin
Academic Affairs Commissioner
Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University

It has been estimated that international students in Ontario contribute over $100 million in government revenue and over $2.1 billion to the economy. So, it is unsurprising that the Premier has set an ambitious goal of increasing post-secondary international student enrolment by 50 per cent. To reach this target, Ontario should distinguish itself as the most supportive place for international students to live and learn. A 2009 survey by the Canadian Bureau for International Education revealed that quality of education, English/French language programming, Canada’s reputation, and institutional prestige were the most important deciding factors for international students’ decision to study in Canada. However, attractive conditions at institutions, cost of education and availability of scholarships were not selected by a majority of respondents.

Currently, all Ontario international students (except those at the University of Windsor) must buy into the University Health Insurance Plan, a private plan run through Sun Life Financial. For a plan that already costs $756 annually for single students and up to $3,400 annually for students with dependents, health premiums are subject to the plan’s demand, and as such fluctuate wildly year-to-year. International students have seen year-to-year premium increases of up to 30% for single students and up to 69% for students with dependents.

There are several reasons why this system needs rethinking. Primarily, it is far less affordable and comprehensive than international competitors, making Ontario a less attractive place to study. Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland all offer public healthcare to their international students after either a 6- or 12-month waiting period. In a comparison with other Canadian provinces, Ontario currently has a smaller share of Canadian international students (36%) than its share of Canadian domestic students (43%).

Internationally, Ontario similarly is falling behind. Of the top four international host countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States), only the U.S. does not offer public healthcare to international students. Ontario has fewer international students per capita than all of the countries offering public healthcare, with the exception of Germany.

Furthermore, current health coverage is not comprehensive, and there is a limited preferred hospital list which accepts the UHIP plan. The Ontario government allows hospitals to charge non-residents a maximum of 250% of the inter-provincial rate; however, UHIP has agreements with a select number of hospitals to only charge students 100% of the inter-provincial rate on emergency room services and hospitalization for up to four days. Hospitals not in UHIP’s preferred hospital network can charge the maximum for their services resulting in out-of-pocket expenses for international students receiving care at those locations.

While at least one hospital in all Ontario university towns have arrangements with UHIP, there are many more hospitals across the province that do not accept the plan, forcing international students to either relocate to another hospital or incur extra charges.

While there are many factors that contribute to success in international recruitment, providing a welcoming and supportive environment to students is a primary feature. At a minimum, the provincial government should work to ensure that all hospitals in Ontario accept the University Health Insurance Plan under the same conditions as hospitals in the preferred hospital network. However, the government should consider fully opening Ontario’s healthcare system to international students by extending eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. This would require an estimated public investment of $50 million, but it would not only bring Ontario up to speed nationally, it would allow us to compete with top international host countries to bring the best and brightest minds to Ontario.

-Sam Andrey
Director of Research & Policy Analysis

The number of international students attending universities in Ontario has been increasing. In 2009, the number of undergraduate internationals students enrolled in Ontario universities was 16,274, a number which is only expected to grow due to the provincial government’s commitment to increase international enrollment by 50%. However, according to the Canadian Bureau for International Education, the number of international students coming from low-income backgrounds is decreasing. This could likely be attributed to the year-over-year increases in international tuition which is making it more difficult for students from lower income backgrounds, though qualified, to attend a post-secondary institution in Ontario. The average international tuition for a first-year arts and science major in Ontario was $16,907 in 2009-10 and tuition has been growing faster than the domestic rates in recent years.

I have met very few international students who are from a lower income background at Brock University. In fact, less than 1 in 10 international students in Canada come from a lower income background and over 80% of international students describe themselves as middle-to-upper class. Currently, while there are merit-based scholarships available to high-achieving international students, there are almost no needs-based scholarships or bursaries available for international students whose primary barrier to post-secondary education in Ontario is money.

The provincial government states its goal is to attract and retain the “best and brightest” international students, but as it stands right now they are attracting the “best and brightest” international students who are financially able to attend post-secondary institutions in Ontario.

Financial need should never be a factor in why a high-achieving international student is unable to attend university in Ontario. More scholarships and bursaries should be created by institutions and the provincial government to attract these high-achieving students to Ontario.

-Daud Grewal
VP University Affairs
Brock University Students’ Union

Last month, StatsCan released the 2010-11 average tuition numbers for the country. Ontario, once again, has the highest tuition in Canada, over $800 more than second-ranked New Brunswick.

As a representative of more than 20,000 undergraduate students, the cost of education is a constant concern to my constituents.

It is time to change the tuition framework in this province. The system leaves the most vulnerable in our society unable to obtain a post-secondary education. Despite the welcome OSAP reforms announced this year, students from high-income backgrounds are still more than twice as likely to attend university as students from low-income backgrounds. This gap has been increasing since 2002.

This is not a black-and-white issue of low income vs. high income. Students from middle-income backgrounds struggle to pay for their education. Financial assistance is available, but results in students entering the world with a high debt load. Ontario must take a serious look at our tuition model.

I don’t recommend free university; our economy could not handle the cost. Nova Scotia has lowered its tuition fees for the fourth year in a row while maintaining a high level of quality. Australia has one of the most interesting and sustainable tuition models in the world. Governments loan students the full amount for their education; the loans are repaid only after the students surpass a certain income threshold. The loan is deducted in small increments from their pay.

A system along these lines would provide greater educational opportunities for all students, not just low-income students. It would effectively level the playing field for all attending post- secondary institutions in Ontario.

-Joe Finkle
MSU VP Education
OUSA VP Administration