OUSA

One of OUSA’s core principles is that financial assistance must be available to all who need it to ensure equitable access to post-secondary education. The distribution of aid to all students in need is one of the most important goals that should underlie the student financial assistance system. However, the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) is currently falling short of meeting this goal, due to qualification rules that bar many of the students with the greatest need from accessing the program. Facing budgetary deficits in the late 1990s, the provincial government disqualified certain groups of students from receiving assistance for their post-secondary studies. This resulted in a rapid 40 per cent decline in the number of students receiving OSAP as groups such as part-time students and students with imperfect credit histories found themselves shut out of the system.

With a new investment of $1.5 billion for financial assistance as part of the Reaching Higher Plan, the Ontario government has expanded aid to some of the most disadvantaged groups who require assistance in order to attend a post-secondary institution. However, despite the increased funding for financial aid, the eligibility rules for OSAP have remained unchanged. While there are several ineligible groups that are of concern to students, the highest priority is extending eligibility to part-time students.

Ontario students are not eligible for OSAP if they take less than 60 per cent of a full course load. This policy replaced the previous regulation prior to 1997-98 that made any student taking at least 20 per cent of a full course load eligible. Part-time students taking between 20 per cent and 59 per cent of a full-time course load can access some assistance through the Canada Student Loan program, however the total outstanding loan is capped at $10,000 and students must pay interest on the loans while in school. In 2007-08, only 1,436 part-time students received a loan, with an average value of $1,948. The part-time student loan is a miniscule proportion of the federal loan program; these borrowers accounted for only 0.4 per cent of all Canada Student Loan recipients.

Meanwhile, part-time students make up a significant portion of the Ontario student body. In 2008-09, over 18 per cent of university students in Ontario were studying on a part-time basis. While there is little research on the demography of Ontario students studying part-time, it is known that women are more likely to enrol part-time and that a majority of students with dependent children with children under the age of five study part-time. Students’ reasons for pursuing studies part-time vary, but include time commitments to employment and family, having a disability, financial constraints, and choosing a more manageable workload, amongst others.

By taking a lighter course load, part-time students are assumed to have more time to work and earn an income, reducing their need for financial assistance. However, this assumes that part-time learners earn sufficient income to support themselves and any dependants, as well as pay for their tuition and other educational costs. The policy therefore creates particular financial difficulty for students with low incomes that cannot meet their costs through employment income, as well students with dependants who cannot earn enough to meet their financial needs.

A part time student is not always synonymous with full time employment. The purpose of the OSAP needs assessment is to determine if a student has sufficient resources to attend university. If part-time students are indeed working enough to meet their financial needs, then they will not be eligible to receive OSAP regardless of changes to the minimum course requirements. Assuming that they work enough to have sufficient resources to pay for a university education implicitly assumes that students choose to study part-time, when in fact many students with family responsibilities are unable to take on full-time studies or work. Furthermore, by not allowing part-time learners to access OSAP, the government also prevents these students from accessing numerous other forms of need-based assistance, including work-study programs, as well as many scholarships and bursaries.

As a result, part-time learners are turning to private loans to fund their education at a higher rate than full-time students. According to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 36 per cent of part-time students reported using private loans, compared to 20 per cent of full-time students. These borrowers tend to face higher interest rates and faster repayment terms, and do not receive interest relief provided in the public system.

Another significant issue of consideration is those that switch from full-time to part-time status. Students who have withdrawn or failed a course must repay the financial assistance disbursed to them for that year of study, and also begin repaying their student loans after six months. This situation may occur for a variety of academic reasons, including poor performance in a class or changing to a more manageable work load. It could also occur for personal reasons such as illness or family tragedy. For students who switch to part-time status, the withdrawal of financial support from OSAP and the demand to return disbursed loans can cause distress for the student.

Students who are enrolled on a part-time basis represent a broad cross-section of the post-secondary population, but count a large proportion of adult learners, students with dependants, and other under-represented groups, who are often unable to dedicate the time and resources required to study full-time. Denying these students access to financial assistance amplifies the barriers that they face in reaching their goals. This will become even more pressing with the forthcoming development of the Ontario Online Institute, as most on-line learners study on a part-time basis and will require additional financial support.

Students welcome the steps the province has taken toward addressing this issue, including the establishment of the $500 Part-Time Student Grant, but stress that more will need to be done over the long-term to reduce the financial barriers for part-time students. Reaching the Premier’s target of 70 per cent post-secondary attainment in the province will require a concerted effort to bring more underrepresented students into our post-secondary institutions. Extending OSAP eligibility to part-time students could go a long way to achieving that goal.

-Sam Andrey
OUSA Director of Research & Policy Analysis

Up, up and away

One thing that students, parents, educators, and administrators can all agree on is the fact that a post-secondary education is expensive. To pay for it, Ontario tuition has increased at rate far above inflation, resulting in the highest fees in Canada. Similarly, government grants to institutions increased above the rate of inflation during the years of the Reaching Higher Plan. Nevertheless, students are not reporting an increase in the quality of their education, and universities still contend that that they are struggling for adequate funding to meet their teaching, research and administrative costs. As a result, student associations are increasingly turning their attention to the question of why this is the case, and have zeroed in on studying the impact of cost inflation at universities.

In this context, cost inflation refers to the rate at which the prices for the goods and services necessary to provide a university education are increasing from year to year. While the consumer-price index (CPI) in Ontario has recently hovered around 2 per cent per year, it has been suggested that universities face substantially greater cost inflation from year to year, necessitating funding increases that exceed CPI inflation. This has given rise to the concept of a Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) that increases at a higher rate.

Cost inflation, then, is very closely related to tuition, in the sense that it is used to explain or justify the need for increasing tuition levels. Under the current Ontario framework, undergraduate tuition for domestic students can increase by a maximum of 5 per cent per year, but many institutions still feel this is insufficient to meet their rising costs. At the same time, many Ontarians feel that the price of a university education is beyond the means of low- and middle-income families.

OUSA has recently begun to examine cost inflation in the university sector. Little research has been done on cost inflation in the Ontarian context, and we believe that this is an important void to fill. Evidence from other jurisdictions has a multitude of often conflicting explanations for the high cost inflation in university settings. Some attribute the problem to yearly wage increases in excess of CPI paid to academic faculty. Others blame the increasing bureaucratization of our post-secondary institutions, in terms of a rise in the number of highly-paid administrative positions tasked with fundraising and donor relations in an attempt to relieve the current cash crunch. Several scholars question the current competitive model of research funding, where institutions must devote significant resources to applying for research grants. Many point out that the increased direction-setting of governments in how universities should spent their funds is an additional cost pressure, including targeted funds for student aid and specific initiatives. Finally, some point to the fact that technological resources, including information-technology staff, computers, and software are major expenses for universities, and the prices of these inputs may rise faster than CPI.

While our efforts are still preliminary, we suspect that all of the aforementioned factors play a role in driving up the cost of a university education. Students believe an adequate understanding of the drivers of cost inflation is essential to tackling the rising cost of education. If these drivers can be understood and lessoned in their impact on university costs, then a more enlightened conversation can begin on how much revenue universities must take in and where it should come from.

-Laura Pin
OUSA Research Analyst

It’s been just over a month since Meaghan Coker (President), Sam Andrey (Director of Research & Policy Analysis) and I sat in the OUSA office and redeveloped the Student Success policy. We attempted to ensure we created a holistic paper that covered everything our students believe is student success. That day was a great for all of us as we left Toronto with a new and improved structure focusing on in-class learning, the broader learning environment and student supports, but it was up to me and Meaghan to make that a reality.

I picked the task of improving the section on student support services of the paper, and this required a great deal of work as our previous work on the topic had just begun to scratch the surface of this important student priority. The expansion of the student support services sections included a vast array of ideas including a renewed focus by both the provincial government and universities on the transition into and out of university as these are critical points through in a student’s life. Additionally, we are focusing on the creation and implementation of a holistic health strategy at all campuses, including both physical and mental health. This is a key for students because health and wellness is crucial to student development and ultimately student success.

A point that is stressed in our submission is these programs cannot be successful unless there is proper support provided by our institutions and the government. Each service at each intuition should be properly funded and supported so they can best serve their students. I am excited to see the final product, and I am sure it will be a fantastic paper that OUSA can be proud of.

-Nick Soave
VP Education, University of Waterloo Federation of Students

Following months of work by Sam Andrey, Doug Calderwood-Smith and I, the OUSA policy paper on ancillary fees is finally nearing completion and will be submitted on time. It was a timely coincidence that in June I was tasked with updating this paper, and in October a number of possible violations were brought to my attention at McMaster. Those issues have quickly been rectified by the administration, but it provided me with a great foundation for new principles, concerns and recommendations.

The policy itself did not need a complete overhaul, but we have made some significant changes. The main change that I will be recommending to the General Assembly in March is that a greater amount of responsibility must be placed on individual university administrations. This responsibility would take the form of greater oversight of products and fees that violate the ancillary fee regulations, a process to address violations, and the institution of education for instructors surrounding the terms of the protocols. By implementing these changes, it would avoid undo financial burdens on students and prevent possible action against universities by the province in an effort to uphold the regulations. In addition I will be recommending that student be given control of ancillary fees levied against students prior to 1993-94 upon the introduction of the ancillary fees regulations. This would, once again, permit students to have a greater say in the cost of their ancillary services.

For now that is all of the sneak peek I will provide. You will now have to wait in eager anticipation for the release of the paper following the General Assembly in March.

-Joe Finkle
VP Education, McMaster Students’ Union

For post-secondary policy nerds like me, last week was pretty exciting. On Tuesday, HEQCO released two new studies by Ross Finnie on the post-secondary participation rates of underrepresented groups in Ontario, and the next day the University of Western Ontario highlighted a new study comparing the effects of parental income on post-secondary participation between Canada and the United States. All three studies use the same data source, namely the first four cycles of Statistics Canada’s Youth in Transition Survey which tracked students who were 15 years old in 2000 for six years.

For those of you don’t have the time to read the combined 164 pages, the basic summary is that low-income students, first generation students, rural students, Aboriginal students, and students with disabilities continue to be underrepresented in post-secondary education, particularly university. One of the more interesting takeaways, though, was the comparison of Ontario results with the other provinces and the United States. The graph below details the differences in the university participation gap compared to the control population of the five underrepresented groups from the HEQCO study. The blue bars control for a variety of factors, including income, parental education, high school location, immigration status, Aboriginal status, and disabilities. The purple bars go further and take into account average high school grades, PISA reading scores and a number of “scale factors” (including high school engagement, self-perception, social support and parental behaviour).

Generated from results in: Finnie, R., Childs, S., & Wismer, A. (2011). Under-Represented Groups in Postsecondary Education in Ontario: Evidence from the Youth in Transition Survey. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

There are several very interesting results. The low-income participation gap is smaller in Ontario than in the rest of Canada, and virtually disappears when the high school grades, PISA scores and scales are taken into account. The four other groups, namely first generation, rural, Aboriginal and disabled students, have participation gaps in Ontario that are higher than the rest of Canada and that remain even with the other variables included. The gap for Aboriginal students is particularly large, with the difference between Ontario standing at more than 7 times that of the rest of Canada. In contrast, French minority students and students with a single parent, groups which were also included in the studies, have significant participation gaps, but the gaps become statistically insignificant when factors like income and parental education are taken into account.

The study from UWO essentially confirms the findings with regards to low-income students and compares these results to the United States. It finds that after controlling for family background and PISA scores, Canada has a smaller low-income participation gap than the United States. The study attempts to use tuition and financial aid considerations to explain the gaps, but I think the true explanation is a more complex web of public policy differences, including university admissions, tuition, financial aid, social assistance programs, and primary and secondary education. The study also has one of the better analyses I’ve seen of the direct relationship between family income and non-repayable financial aid in Ontario. While the data pre-dates several new non-repayable grants in Ontario and changes to tuition levels between 2005 and 2010 (making the absolute numbers less useful), the overall slope has likely not changed significantly. As noted in the study, one of the main differences between the Canadian and U.S. systems is the existence of a minimum student contribution in Canada, which has all students contribute around $3,000 to their education. It also illustrates nicely the regressive effect of tax credits, as the study explains: “The modest increases in aid at very low income levels in Canada are due to the inability of very low income families to fully benefit from education tax credits.”

Source: Belley, P., Frenette, M., & Lochner, L. (2010). Post-Secondary Attendance by Parental Income: Comparing the U.S. and Canada. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario, CIBC Working Paper # 2010-3.

While the use of high school grades and PISA scores was helpful in each of these studies in teasing out the effects of academics on participation gaps, I worry about the way these effects could be misjudged when making policy decisions, particularly regarding financial and motivational barriers. Students in Ontario with a family income below $50,000, for example, were determined to have a 15% gap in university participation (35% versus 50% for family incomes above $50,000). When other characteristics, such as parental education, geographic location and Aboriginal status, were taken into account, the gap closed to 7%. Then when the student’s high school grades were taken into consideration, the gap closed to 3%. Finally, when PISA scores and scales were included, the gap disappeared to a statistically insignificant 0.5%.

I suppose it is comforting to know that two students with the same grades, reading ability, academic preparation, parental guidance, and self-confidence go to university at similar rates regardless of being above or below the $50,000 income threshold. But many have used this finding to argue that income is not a real barrier and that current tuition and financial aid systems are adequate, which I think largely oversimplifies the complex relationships between financial, informational and motivational barriers to post-secondary education. For example, are these students making decisions early in their lives that they can’t afford to go onto university and therefore settling for lower grades, lower PISA scores and exhibiting lower engagement with their academics? Should we be worried that grades and achievement are highly correlated with family income? I would argue that much of the qualitative work that has been done in this area emphasizes just how complicated the real picture is.

These studies also prove just how valuable the YITS survey is as a source of data, but it is also somewhat dated. All of these studies use the first four cycles of YITS-A from 2000 to 2006, and tracked students who (for the most part) entered PSE around 2003. In the years that followed, there have been a multitude of changes to tuition, financial assistance programs, and early outreach initiatives across Canada. With the federal government’s decision to cancel any future cohorts of the Youth in Transition Survey, the effect of these changes on specific underrepresented groups may be left largely unknown. HEQCO’s current plan to develop an Ontario-based longitudinal survey will go a long way to filling this gap and cannot come soon enough.

Dr. Finnie summarized the importance of the studies well, stating that “the policy implications are potentially far-reaching.” In addition to recommending we do more to address financial constraints, he argued more attention should be devoted to “improving student motivation and performance at (or before) the high school level, providing better information to students and their families about the costs and benefits of education from an early age and carrying out other interventions targeted at the early-rooted and family-based factors that seem to be the most important determinants of access.” The province’s support for the community-based program Pathways to Education is already working along these lines and has shown tremendous success. These studies confirm, however, that more still needs to be done, particularly through the primary and secondary school curriculum to reach far more students.

In summary, the three studies add to the growing body of Canadian work on underrepresented groups in post-secondary education and prove particularly insightful in comparing Ontario with different jurisdictions. The fact that Ontario compares favourably with the rest of Canada and the U.S. when it comes to low-income participation is valuable to know – though no jurisdictional comparison, caveat or control makes me feel content with the fact that the highest income quartile participates in university 60% more often than the lowest income quartile. We also still have a ways to go on improving post-secondary access for other underrepresented groups, where Ontario ranks further behind neighbouring jurisdictions. The Ontario government has made considerable effort to encourage post-secondary participation among underrepresented group, and students look forward to continuing to collaborate on next steps to closing these participation gaps and building a more equitable Ontario.

-Sam Andrey
OUSA Director of Research & Policy Analysis

VIEW NEWSLETTER

The year 2011 has started with lots of activity, as January was filled with considerable progress on a number of OUSA’s ongoing priorities. Most visibly on our campuses across Ontario, the annual Blue Chair Campaign was a great success at raising awareness and bringing understanding to the issues of accessibility and early intervention. Accessibility continues to be a major priority for OUSA, and we are looking forward to jointly releasing our Access submission, “Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Equal Access to Higher Education”, with the College Student Alliance (CSA) and the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association (OSTA) this month.

On January 17^th, the Honourable John Milloy, Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities, officially  announced the creation of a Credit Transfer Innovation Fund, which included over 70 million dollars to assist in the development of an expansive credit transfer system between Ontario’s university and colleges. This is one step forward towards opening up Ontario’s pathway mobility between our post-secondary institutions and students recognize the access opportunities that this will mean for them.

With the announcement of the Provincial budget quickly approaching, on behalf of OUSA I was provided the opportunity to present our budget recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. In our submission, we highlighted the importance to provide for enhancements to the student financial assistance system and to increase Ontario’s per student funding levels, with the aim of returning to a fairer cost sharing model between government and students. In addition to funding the long term enrollment growth as outlined in the Open Ontario Plan, we continue to stress the importance of the government providing leadership in terms of investing in teaching quality and student support services in our institutions.

During the question period of our presentation, we continued to receive support from MPP Elizabeth Witmer, Education Critic for the Official Opposition, on better allocating Education Tax Credit funding and the substantial impact that teacher training programs can have on the classroom learning experience for students.

In the lead up to the provincial budget release, we will continue the conversation around the recommendations OUSA has made to improve the accessibility, affordability, accountability, and quality of post-secondary education in our province, and the significant benefits these investments have for the prosperity of Ontario and all Ontarians.

-Meaghan Coker

For those of you who missed it, the Canadian Press published an article yesterday that offered some interesting viewpoints on the quality of teaching at a number of Ontario universities. The article focused on the significant increase in student complaints about Ryerson University professors, but also interviewed students at the University of Ottawa and York University who advanced the idea that a professor who “might be a great researcher but a terrible teacher” can “continue to teach students despite their failings as an educator.”

These sentiments echo those heard on the Windsor campus and across OUSA’s member schools, as students increasingly feel that the research agenda is overshadowing the need for excellence in the classroom. And as one student in the article recognized, institutional change is unlikely when universities are rewarded financially for hiring stellar researchers, regardless of their teaching ability.

All is not lost, however. Here are a few ways the government can incentivize change:

1. Increase institutional funding for teaching-focused faculty positions. With student-faculty ratios increasing, professors are spending less time engaging with students and more time marking multiple-choice tests. Hiring faculty members who still conduct some research but focus on teaching reduces the need for sessional lecturers, lowers class sizes, and may help ensure better teachers in the classroom.

2. Provide incentives for institutions to create mandatory teacher training programs. For some reason, we expect university faculty to be able to teach simply because they’ve spent a long time in classrooms. The government need only provide a small envelope of funding – perhaps with as little as $10 million – to provide grants to those institutions willing to develop a short 40 hour training program that would be mandatory for new professors.

3. Change the incentive structure for both universities and faculty. The only way to ensure a change in the culture of our institutions is to change the underlying incentive structures. Universities should no longer be rewarded for chasing research funding to the detriment of their teaching mission, and professors should no longer be given tenure for doing exactly the same thing on a smaller scale.

-Robert Woodrich
Vice President University Affairs
University of Windsor Students’ Alliance

OUSA's Executive Directors

Charity Village Job Post Link

Formed in 1995, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) is a non-profit advocacy organization that strives to effectively and responsibly represent Ontario’s full and part-time undergraduate students. The organization’s mission is to advocate for an affordable, accessible, accountable and high-quality higher education system in Ontario. In order to achieve these aims, OUSA provides research and policy solutions to government, organizes campaigns, communicates student priorities through the media, and develops partnerships with other stakeholders. With a membership of more than 140,000 undergraduate, professional full and part-time students, OUSA is one of the largest and most respected student advocacy organizations in the country.

POSITION: Executive Director

DETAILS: Forty hours per week with the requirement to work some evenings and weekends.

START DATE: The successful candidate will be provided with a two-week transition (full-time, at full salary) beginning in May 2011, and will assume full responsibility for the organization in June 2011.

COMPENSATION: Annual salary starting at $47,000

APPLICATION DEADLINE: Friday, March 4, 2011 at 5PM

Working with the Steering Committee, the Executive Director acts the chief steward for the organization, managing and directing all operations, programs and activities of the home office. In partnership with the President of the Alliance, the Executive Director acts as a key spokesperson of undergraduate students to provincial and federal governments, and is responsible for implementing the policy decisions and directives of the Steering Committee. He/she is responsible for assisting in the preparation of an annual budget; hiring, evaluating and supervising professional office staff; reporting progress to the Steering Committee; and representing the organization to the government, the media, and other stakeholders.

The ideal candidate should possess:

• A university baccalaureate level degree or equivalent combination of education and work experience;
• Strong background or relevant experience in the post-secondary and non-profit realms;
• Excellent oral and written communications skills, analytical thinking skills, and organizational skills;
• Skills to work independently and manage others;
• Proven ability to mentor, motivate and empower student leaders;
• The ability to forcefully convey the ideas of others to a range of audiences and build relationships to influence change; and
• Ability to communicate in both official languages is considered an asset.

While OUSA is a professional organization, it is intimately connected with university students.  This youthful attitude transfers into a highly charged and passionate workplace that creates a unique opportunity for both satisfying and creative work. OUSA makes every effort to reward employees with both a relaxing and exciting environment and a job that gives them the chance to build and develop their skills.

Please send resume and cover letter via e-mail to:

Meaghan Coker, President
e-mail: hr@ousa.on.ca
website: www.ousa.ca

In November OUSA came together for its annual Lobby Conference and one of the priorities we advocated for was targeting funding for ancillary student services. Ancillary services are the crucial student supports at universities that often are the first places to feel budget tightening. Services like mental health resource centres, learning commons, career guidance, Aboriginal student centres, and services for students with disabilities are very important to student success, but often overlooked.

These services are important to students and we can’t afford not to support them. When students drop out of university, it represents both wasted student potential and taxpayer dollars. Student support services, however, are a proven way to raise retention and graduation rates. Unfortunately, too often, these services are not a priority for administrations when making budgetary decisions, and students lack sufficient representation on governing bodies to do anything about it.

It’s not always that ancillary services are having their budgets cut, but they are not increasing to meet student demand. Members of Steering Committee can all share stories of how their ancillary services are so under-resourced that students who book an appointment in November aren’t seen until March. This is unacceptable for students in need.

We need to support these services. While some universities’ student bodies have voted to compensate for budget cuts with increased ancillary fees, this shouldn’t be the sole responsibility of students. Students already do a lot to raise awareness about mental health issues, or to promote tutoring services and learning strategies, but at the end of the day these services need targeted funding from the government to ensure adequate support.

OUSA suggested in the pre-Budget consultations an allocation of $25 million worth of new funding to a new special purpose operating grant to fund improvements to support services. This grant would be available to institutions through a matching program that contributes one provincial dollar for every additional dollar of institutional funding directed to new support initiatives. This would do much to improve these services and demonstrate the government’s commitment to student success at the post-secondary level.

Our universities cannot afford to turn students away from ancillary services. Ancillary services need targeted funding so they can provide for the student need that often grows in silence. The government needs to direct funding to these resource centres so they can hire new staff, increase their capacity, and meet student demand. They should always be ahead of the curve, not lagging behind.

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

Over the past month, campuses across Ontario have been engaging students with OUSA’s 4^th annual Blue Chair Campaign. OUSA’s Blue Chair Campaign started in 2008 on all of OUSA’s member campuses, with an aim to draw awareness and support for access strategies in Ontario.

As one of OUSA’s main pillars, accessibility is incredibly important to students, as it allows us to advocate for those without a voice, and those who will take our place in the future. There are too many students and too many underrepresented groups who are unable to attend higher education in Ontario for any number of reasons. Income, parents, gender, race, region, motivation, and so much more factor into a students inability to attain or even seek post-secondary. OUSA’s Blue Chair Campaign draws awareness to these issues through the use of empty blue chairs in classrooms, hallways, atriums, common spaces, and offices to remind students in university that while they were fortunate enough to be there, there are many who are far less fortunate.

Awareness of underrepresented groups alone will not drive change. Many of OUSA’s campuses have events that raise funds to support early outreach programs, reaching out to students in high schools and in their communities. Many campuses raise funds for Pathways to Education and other great programs that have been shown to improve access to higher education.

As part of OUSA’s bigger picture in tackling access, we will soon be releasing Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Equal Access to Higher Education, outlining recommendations for a holistic strategy to improve access, instead of one-time programs that have very narrow and limited reach. Perhaps once these recommendations are implemented, a few more empty blue chairs will be filled.

-Alvin Tedjo
OUSA Director of Communications