OUSA

It might come as a surprise to some of you, and certainly as a surprise to many students, that nearly all of a student’s assets are counted by the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) as part of the resources expected to fund their post-secondary studies. This includes all savings held in cash at financial institutions or in other investments. It should be noted that there are some exemptions for vehicles worth less than $5,000 and for up to $2,000 in RRSPs for each year that a student has been out of secondary school. However, many students who are able to accumulate savings do not deposit them into RRSPs for various reasons, including wanting to keep more accessible funds or because they have not reached an income level where this would be financially beneficial to them. It also allows asset exemptions of $5,000 for sole support parents and $3,000 for students with disabilities. However, students that fall outside of these categories have almost no room for savings. Students who choose to keep assets easily accessible as savings have those resources used in their OSAP needs assessment, reducing the student’s assessed need on a dollar for dollar basis. This means that a student with just $300 dollars in their bank account would be expected by OSAP to use the full $300 to fund their education, as their available assistance would be reduced by $300.

While students can be expected to contribute to their education, not allowing them to keep a reasonable cushion of savings, and to implicitly expect them to end each academic year with no money, places them in potentially precarious situations where instead prudent financial planning should be encouraged. Many students are keeping savings for potential emergencies, illnesses or simply to have funds available post-graduation. Where other long-term loans, like mortgages, allow borrowers to start accumulate something valuable or enhance their lives on the understanding that they will pay the funds back, they do so while allowing the client to keep the assets they need to meet life’s little surprises or to acquire other things they might need. The government has shown that it understands that students often have difficulty immediately finding employment and repaying their loans after graduation; this is why they offer graduates a grace period of six months during which no interest accumulates and a borrower can defer repayment. The same difficulties exist for students during the time of their studies: many are unable to find employment on summer breaks. If students and graduates alike are having difficulties finding employment, it is difficult to come to terms with this notion that students should be leaving themselves in positions of financial vulnerability at the end of their academic years by not having savings set aside.

OUSA has been recommending for some time that there be a reasonable exemption for savings in the OSAP needs assessment formula for all students, not just those sole support parents and students with disabilities. A student looking for OSAP support is demonstrating significant financial need by doing so. In these tough economic times we should be rewarding those students who scrape together reasonable savings to see them through employment or personal difficulties. A reasonable exemption for personal assets through OSAP would accomplish just that, and should be considered an important next step for improving financial aid in Ontario.

-Sean Madden
OUSA President
VP University Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union

In 1992, twenty years ago this spring, five student governments left the Ontario Federation of Students and created an informal alliance of students dedicated to improving higher education in Ontario. Student leaders from Brock, Queen’s, the University of Toronto, Waterloo and Laurier were our founding members, while Western and McMaster joined when OUSA formally incorporated on this day in 1995. Since then, many student governments have been a part of OUSA, including the Student Federation at the University of Ottawa (SFUO), the Organization of Part-Time University Students (OPUS) at the University of Windsor, the McMaster Association of Part-Time Student and the Trent in Oshawa Student Association. Some of these student governments have joined, left, rejoined OUSA, as part of a founding principle that OUSA’s members can join and leave as easily as they wish, something that OUSA’s members cherish as part of their member autonomy.

Our alliance was founded on consensus, and creates its policy through a rigorous process at its General Assemblies and through its Steering Committee, where population and member organizations are given fair opportunities to form our policies.

Over the last twenty years, OUSA has worked with provincial governments of all political stripes, achieving success with each of them. OUSA’s belief in researched and educated solutions to the challenges facing post-secondary education in Ontario is what has led to its success. From our first success with the introduction of ancillary fee regulations, to  millions more dollars for student aid, access initiatives, growth, and tuition caps and freezes, OUSA has had a proud history of working with governments to improve higher education for all Ontarians. On this day, we take some time to reflect on this past and, hopefully, look forward to another twenty years of providing educated solutions on behalf of Ontario students.

-Alvin Tedjo
OUSA Director of Communications

It’s that time of year again, where student representatives and policy nerds from across Ontario unite under one university campus to debate, critique and move forward with innovative solutions to the problems students face with their post-secondary education. From March 9^th to 11^th, McMaster University will be hosting the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance Spring General Assembly! The weekend will begin with opening remarks from McMaster University Provost and Vice President (Academic) Ilene Busch-Vishniac, a champion of student excellence and supporter of student-led initiatives. This will be followed by a presentation and Q&A with the newly re-branded McMaster University Student Wellness Centre, committed to enhancing personal and academic success through the provision of personal and psychological counselling, mental health support, medical and health services, and wellness education. This presentation is a perfect complement to our research-based policy on student health, one of three comprehensive papers being discussed by students at the Assembly. Later that afternoon, students will participate in a series of break-out sessions on our additional policies – student mobility and mature students. These three subjects encompass the priority research areas for the organization for the past few months. They will be discussed and shaped on both Friday and Saturday, and then go forward for further debate to the Plenary on Sunday morning (which will again be webcast live from the OUSA website). If the policies are approved, these will shape our lobbying initiatives in the future.

McMaster is also proud to be hosting our local MPP, Minister Ted McMeekin for a brief visit and Q&A with students from across Ontario. In addition to being a Mac alumnus, Minister McMeekin was the former Parliamentary Assistant to the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, and is currently the Minister of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs. We look forward to hosting him and hearing his critical analysis on the post-secondary landscape. Another special guest during the weekend will be MPP Rob Leone, the PC Critic for Training, Colleges and Universities. As another McMaster alumnus, holding a PhD in Comparative Public Policy from the Department of Political Science, his academic and political expertise in the areas of Canadian politics, public policy and public administration will undoubtedly prove valuable to the dialogue throughout the weekend.

The McMaster Students Union (MSU) and the McMaster Association of Part-Time Students (MAPS) are both looking forward to hosting this conference and seeing the positive discourse that results from three days of intense debate amongst Ontario’s student representatives.

Till then,

Alicia Ali
Vice President (Education), McMaster Students Union

Education is often called the great equalizer, something that levels the playing field for those from different socio-economic backgrounds and can enable individuals and families to break the cycle of poverty.  But sometimes our system can reinforce social inequalities, particularly if those from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds are excluded from participating to the same degree as their more affluent counterparts.

The importance of education in creating a more equitable and just society is why access to education for underrepresented groups remains an important advocacy priority for OUSA. While we’ve written about low-income, rural and northern, Aboriginal students, students with dependants, and first generation students on this blog, rarely do those on social assistance get discussed in the context of access to post-secondary education. Recently, the Ontario government established the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario with the specific goal of making recommendations that “reduce barriers and support people’s transition into, and attachment, within the labour market.” Yet many individuals on Ontario’s two social assistance programs – Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) – lack the educational credentials necessary to obtain steady employment. In fact, individuals on ODSP and OW are less than half as likely to hold a post-secondary credential as the Ontario population as a whole.

In light of the fact that it can often be difficult for individuals on social assistance to transition to college or university studies, OUSA recently put forward a submission to the Commission with recommendations on how to eliminate access barriers for individuals on social assistance, or those living with a family member on social assistance. The recommendations are particularly targeted at the interaction of social assistance with the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP).

Social Assistance Review Submission

Most of the recommendations are simple and low cost, like eliminating the three-month waiting period for income exemption for students living with a family member on Ontario Works. However, we also urge the Commission to consider broader and more sweeping reforms in the long-term to truly remove the barriers of these individuals to transition to post-secondary education and the workforce, including raising assistance rates, increasing the asset limit caps, and better access to free training and education.

We want to thank the Commission for their important work in reviewing Ontario’s social assistance programs, and we look forward to continuing together to create more seamless integration between student assistance and social assistance. While our recommendations are a starting point, there is much more work to be done to improve social assistance in Ontario.

-Laura Pin
OUSA Research Analyst

The Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer (ONCAT), a newly incorporated body dedicated to facilitating and supporting academic collaboration and the development of more seamless student mobility among Ontario’s publicly funded colleges and universities, seeks student representatives to serve on the inaugural Board of Directors.

The eleven-member Board is composed of a President and two Vice-Presidents Academic from each post-secondary sector; two student members who have experienced postsecondary transfer, one from the college sector and one from the university sector; one graduate of a college or university who has experienced postsecondary transfer; and two external members, one of whom will have experience as a senior administrator in an Ontario secondary school board.

This volunteer position provides an opportunity to participate in policy development, project planning and research related to postsecondary collaboration and student transfer between and within the college and university sectors in Ontario in order to optimize postsecondary opportunities for students and reduce duplication of prior learning.  There is no compensation associated with membership on the ONCAT Board; however, members will receive reimbursement for expenses incurred when they attend Board meetings or engage in other Board business.  We anticipate that there will be approximately six  Board meetings per year and there may be some additional work associated with ONCAT activities or with committees.

Applications are sought from university students who have transferred from a certificate, diploma or advanced diploma program at an Ontario college to a degree program at an Ontario university.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact OUSA’s Executive Director Sam Andrey at ed@ousa.ca or 416-341-9948.

Interested students are invited to submit an application, including a curriculum vitae and a letter indicating reasons for interest in this volunteer role by March 15, 2012 to:

Maureen Callahan, PhD
Interim Executive Director, College University Consortium Council (CUCC)
123 Edward Street, Suite 922
Toronto, ON  M5G 1E2
(647) 800-7954, ext. 1

Applications may be submitted electronically to mcallahan@ontransfer.ca

The long-awaited report from the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services was released yesterday. Among the report’s 362 recommendations for the Ontario government, there were 30 recommendations specifically for the post-secondary education system.

The Commission has some excellent ideas that students welcome and others that we’re disappointed with. However, their analysis of the challenges that lie ahead for our system is insightful and worth quoting directly: “Post-secondary education in Ontario will face significant pressures to meet five critical demands: educate a rising share of the population; help equalize economic and social outcomes across the population; provide an important component of lifelong learning; be an engine of innovation; and deliver quality education in an efficient manner.” This is advice that students fully support and will urge the government to keep in mind as they move forward with enacting any changes.

Turning to the specifics, the recommendations are organized into seven themes, which we will respond to in turn.

1. Contain Government Funding and Institutional Expenses

To achieve budget balance by 2017-18 without increasing taxes, the Commission recommends that post-secondary education spending be kept to 1.5 per cent growth annually. This proposed rate of growth is considerably higher than most other areas of government and reaffirms the importance of post-secondary education to the future of Ontario. To its credit though, the report concedes that “such growth means that [university operating] grants will not keep pace with projected enrolment growth of 1.7 per cent per year, nor with the general rate of inflation, never mind with the institutions’ historical internal rates of inflation.” As a result, per-student funding will fall and further shift the responsibility for funding of post-secondary education onto students – a trend underway for the past three decades that next year will result in students contributing more than government to university operating budgets for the first time in Ontario’s history. Of all the recommendations, this is undoubtedly the most disappointing. Having operating funding keep pace with growth at a minimum has long been a commitment of this government – and we will continue to advocate for sufficient government funding moving forward.

Ontario university operating revenue using projected 1.7% enrolment growth, 1.5% growth in provincial funding and 5% growth in tuition fees

The Commission also urges the government to “work with post-secondary institutions to reduce bargained compensation increases.” As the report points out (using OUSA’s own Rising Costs report), salaries and benefits are by far the largest expenditure of universities, and unreasonable compensation increases will crowd out resources for the quality initiatives that the government is undoubtedly hoping continued tuition increases will facilitate. Finally, the report suggests that institutions “consider using alternative financing and procurement, especially for buildings that do not qualify for government funding, such as residences.” Some public-private partnerships for university building construction can make sense and are already being done in some cases. However, completely private residences could open up students to exploitation. It also would not likely result in government savings since almost all the costs of residence buildings are already paid for entirely by students through residence fees.

2. Increase Differentiation through Establishing Mandate Agreements

Turning to accountability, the Commission agrees with the Ministry’s Putting Students First plan to establish “multi-year mandate agreements with universities and colleges that provide more differentiation and minimize duplication.” The report recommends a blue-ribbon panel or HEQCO be tasked with reviewing the mandate agreements. Part of the intent is ensuring that “not every institution needs [becomes] a comprehensive research university, nor does each college require new degree-granting authority.” It goes onto to suggest that “colleges should not be granted any new degree programs, but should have existing programs grandfathered.”

OUSA has responded in the past to proposals for increased differentiation and have laid out our vision for strategic planning. In this response, we asked the government to “work with institutions to plan for future enrolment growth and initiate dialogue on what each institution believes its plans and priorities should be. From these discussions, teaching or research strengths should be incentivized where those strengths exist, and performance indicators and benchmarks should reflect the unique conditions of each institution… This would allow institutions to differentiate themselves naturally, rather than following system-wide incentives from both the provincial and federal government.”

Finally, the report suggests creating “a comprehensive, enforceable credit recognition system between and among universities and colleges.” It cites increased credit recognition, residency requirements and better communication as key goals. Improving student mobility is a significant priority for OUSA, and we will continue to work with and push our universities and government to accelerate the progress that’s been made.

3. Encourage and Reward Quality

Perhaps our favourite section of the Commission’s report is its vision for improving the quality of the undergraduate experience. The report urges three critical recommendations: investment in experiential learning; incentivizing and rewarding faculty who focus on teaching; and reporting on, and tying, provincial funding to quality objectives and learning outcomes. Students have been talking for years about the imbalance between teaching and research in our institutions, and the need to focus on the undergraduate experience. Experiential learning, teaching-focused faculty and teaching chairs are just a few of the proposals we have been advocating for, and we are looking forward to discussing how to advance this recommendation with the Ontario government.

4. Revise Research Funding Structures

The report recommends evaluating “the research funding system of post-secondary institutions and research hospitals as a whole” and “awarding provincial research funding more strategically and managing it more efficiently.” The indirect costs of research are considerable and are generally not fully funded, which as the report points out can result in institutions cross-subsidizing research at the expense of teaching. It seems worthwhile to periodically review the situation and ensure resources being effectively used for their intended purposes.

5. Maintain Current Tuition Fee Increases but Simplify the Framework

The report then turns its attention to the framework that regulates tuition increases. Their recommendation is to “maintain the existing tuition framework, which allows annual tuition increases of five per cent. However, simplify the design to maintain the overall ceiling but allow institutions greater flexibility to adjust tuition fees at the program level, within the ceiling.”

Students are very disappointed with this recommendation for two reasons. As noted earlier, tuition increases impact affordability, accessibility and fairness of system-wide costs. We believe that the government should be taking further steps to reduce the burden on students. In our recent submission to the Ontario government on tuition, we advocate that – if they must increase at all – tuition fees cannot increase by more than inflation.

The Ontario government and Commission have widely acknowledged the notion that this should be an era of efficiency and restraint. If the proposal for continued 5% annual increases is accepted (resulting in overall per-student revenue growth beyond the rate of inflation), universities are evidently going to be exempt from this restraint, with students left to foot the bill. If the government proceeds forward with continued 5% increases, we’d urge that the new tuition revenue at the very least be regulated such that some goes directly to new hires or other quality improvements.

Furthermore, the notion that universities should be given “greater flexibility” to increase tuition fees at the program level is wholly rejected by students. The current framework restricts increases for first-year students to 4% for undergraduate programs and 8% for professional and graduate programs. Removing these program-level restrictions will undoubtedly result in large-scale increases for professional and other high-demand programs, which have in the past proven to have impacts on access and participation of underrepresented groups. We remain steadfast in our position that the tuition cap should be uniform for all programs.

6. Re-evaluate Student Financial Assistance

The Commission has a considerable number of recommendations for reforming student aid programs. The report starts by pointing out that $2.2 billion of provincial and federal non-repayable aid is given out each year to Ontario students, and compares it to the $3.3 billion collected in tuition and fees. It’s worth noting that student aid (including tax credits and loan remission) is also provided in large part for living expenses, making the comparison between tuition and financial aid not completely fair. Regardless, the report thankfully emphasizes the importance of student aid and suggests the continuation or improvement of several programs.

The Student Access Guarantee, and the corresponding tuition set-aside requirement, is recommended for continuation. While students think the program could be improved (and perhaps better run directly by OSAP), it is reassuring to see that at least some new tuition revenue will come back to students in need. The report also recommends the phasing out of provincial tuition and education tax credits. This has been a long-standing recommendation of students, and we urge the government to follow through on this recommendation (and its 2007 election promise) to eliminate this regressive program and target the money to up-front aid. The report goes onto suggest decoupling grants and loans – much the same way the new Ontario tuition grant is – a move that has been recommended and supported by students as an important step for debt-averse students.

One of the more contentious recommendations was to “reshape student financial assistance provided by both the federal and provincial governments, including the newly announced 30% Off Ontario Tuition grant, to target more of the assistance to low-income students.” This was mischaracterized by some media outlets as scrapping the new tuition grant program all together; however, the actual recommendation is much more nuanced. OUSA has strongly supported the Ontario tuition grant as a significant step forward for the affordability of post-secondary education, and we are confident that the government will be preserving this important investment. We will also continue to discuss with the government ways to expand eligibility and better support high-need students moving forward.

7. Generate Cost Efficiencies through Measures such as Integrating Administrative and Back-Office Functions

The final section urges institutions to do more collective purchasing (which they already do in some areas), establish a single pension fund administrator, and prioritize deferred maintenance in capital planning (a view shared by students). It argues that funding for international marketing should be integrated into existing trade missions. Our priorities for re-investment lie elsewhere – namely in better supporting our international students through tuition predictability, support services and improved health insurance.

The report also recommends compelling “post-secondary institutions to examine whether they can compress some four-year degrees into three years by continuing throughout the summer.” Given the realities of the student labour market and financial constraints, it is hard to predict whether demand for such programs would be sufficient to result in any cost-savings.  However, some students may prefer an expanded range of courses offered in the spring or summer term to increase flexibility. We will continue to engage in a discussion with government and institutions on the matter.

We want to thank the Commission for taking the time to listen to students throughout their consultations and for including some very constructive proposals. We intend to consult students on all of the recommendations in the coming month and will continue our conversations with the government on how to best achieve sustainability from a financial and quality perspective. Above all else, OUSA’s efforts will be guided by building a more affordable, accessible, accountable and high quality post-secondary education system in Ontario.

-Sam Andrey and Sean Madden
OUSA Executive Director and President

Last week, OUSA released its submission to the Ontario government on the expiring tuition framework. Among the recommendations were several ways to improve eligibility and design of the newly launched Ontario tuition grant. With the grant’s current design, all eligible students studying toward a degree receive the same grant value ($800 this term and approximately $1,600 in September), regardless of the actual cost of a student’s program. This across-the-board design made communication and administration of this grant easier for the interim launch this past January, but students are urging the government to change this design for September 2012.

Our first and most important concern with the current design is its substantially lower value for students studying in higher-cost programs. The value of the university grant of $1,600 was determined by tying it to 30 per cent of the average cost of a first-entry arts and science degree – which varies between $5,300 and $5,600 depending on the institution and program. The true average undergraduate tuition, however, is $6,640 according to Statistics Canada. While this figure includes second-entry programs such as medicine and law that are ineligible for the tuition grant, the average excluding second-entry programs is still over $6,400.

For example, Ontario students studying engineering directly out of high school pay an average of $8,850, while first-entry business students are charged $7,820. Computer science and architecture students similarly pay averages above $7,000. Approximately one in five first-entry university students are studying in these higher cost programs. For these students, the “30% off tuition grant” will be worth closer to 20 per cent.

Furthermore, the current across-the-board design results in students taking reduced course loads receiving the same grant as those taking a normal or increased course load. For example, a student taking six courses in an academic year (60 per cent of a normal course load) would receive the same $1,600 grant as a student taking the normal ten courses, despite typically paying three-fifths the cost. If the student taking a reduced course load was instead given 30 per cent of their actual tuition, the government could find savings to re-invest to address higher-cost programs.

The current Ontario Access Grants are already calculated using the student’s actual tuition cost, and students believe that the Ontario tuition grant should be treated the same way. From an individual student perspective, it is also considerably easier to understand and plan for your costs if you know that 30 per cent of your tuition bill will be paid for. While this will likely be a more expensive program as a result, we believe that it is the fairest and best way forward.

-Sam Andrey
OUSA Executive Director

In February 2012, OUSA released its government submission on Tuition

VIEW NEWSLETTER

Our annual Blue Chair awareness campaign is in various stages of completion at our member campuses, and with yesterday’s release of OUSA’sTomorrow’s Tuition: A New Framework for Affordable Higher Education, we’re continuing to have important discussions about access and persistence for Ontario’s students. Blue Chair seeks to raise awareness about those barriers that can keep a student from attending a post-secondary institution; be they informational, motivational, geographical or, a common concern, financial. As we reach out to students at our universities, we hear that many that did make it to school had to overcome very real concerns about being able to afford it, and once in had to make tough choices about balancing work and classes. With cost and debt concerns already a significant barrier to education, it is critical that the next framework for the regulation of tuition put students first and hold affordability and fairness as its core considerations. Students are already facing the legacy of sustained tuition increases above their ability to pay and are often stymied by unfair practices in how tuition is charged as they try to cope.

As the government considers the rate of allowable tuition increases, we ask that they work to preserve and enhance the progress made with introduction of the tuition grant. Similarly, it is important that our universities and colleges work with the government to address some payment practices at their own institutions that punish students who rely on aid disbursement schedules or in study work to pay, or that have forced students to chose between financial assistance or paying for education that they do not receive. There is growing recognition by students, administrations and governments alike that our students are changing. Their ability to pay, the demands on their time, their ability to participate in a traditional “full course load” have changed dramatically, and what is needed is a call to action to reconsider what is fair to today’s student.

What OUSA asks with its Blue Chair campaign is for students to consider the barriers that they might have had to overcome in order to partake in the personally and socially enriching experience of university. We ask that they consider the peers who might not have been so fortunate. And, increasingly, to consider those things that might keep them from successfully completing university. What we’re asking with Tomorrow’s Tuition is for those that we trust to provide an affordable, accessible, accountable and high quality education to do the same.

-Sean Madden

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending Three New Campuses for Ontario:  A Symposium on Options, Challenges and Possibilities at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). The day was full of stimulating discussion on what the best use might be for the three new campuses announced in the Ontario Liberal platform this past election. The day began with a broad consensus that it is rather remarkable that expansion of higher education was the axis of discussion in Ontario at a time of fiscal restraint, when many other jurisdictions are wondering how best to limit the size.

Two perspectives struck me as particularly noteworthy, both for their recognition that massive transformation is necessary and their diametric opposition to each other. The first was the perspective from Dr. Ian Clark and David Trick, authors of Academic Transformation and Academic Reform, arguing that Ontario would do well to make the three new institutions teaching-oriented, with faculty teaching devoting eighty per cent of their time to teaching, ten per cent of their time to research and ten to administrative or other types of activities. As they have argued many times before, teaching-oriented universities would improve quality for students, as well as cut per-student operating costs by nearly half. This line of reasoning carries the assumptions that the system will need to grow, both in capacity and productivity to meet future student demand and government funding constraints.

While students broadly support an increased focus on teaching in the university system, OUSA has traditionally been critical of the proposal to create teaching-only institutions. This isn’t due to the fact that the system is not sorely in need of greater teaching focus, but rather because this greater teaching focus must take place system-wide, rather than localized to certain small campuses. Furthermore, for students to be on campuses without any pure scholarship is to call into question whether they are attending a university at all. This perspective was well articulated by another presenter, Dr. Tricia Stelfer, who that “system redesign must begin at research universities.”

Our perspective on this comes not only out of the fact that we believe that all students in Ontario deserve to receive the benefit of increased teaching focus (even the ones at universities that want to do more research); it also makes good economic sense for Ontario. The unit that Clark et al. use to indicate that teaching-oriented universities would be economically effective is the teaching load of the individual professor. However, increasing this unit would not only make teaching universities more cost-efficient; it would do the same for Ontario’s existing universities.

For example, by increasing the teaching responsibilities for some faculty at currently existing “research” institutions (possibly through the further introduction and rewarding of teaching-focused faculty positions already in place at several universities), one can theoretically increase efficiency without spending new money. Some preliminary analysis of data from the twelve Ontario universities that provide part-time faculty FTEs, it is possible to estimate per-course cost savings that would be associated with increased teaching loads. This hypothetical scenario uses faculty compliments, operating expenditures and course numbers taught in the 2009-10 academic year. 

Given these considerations, it can be seen that increased usage of faculty with higher teaching loads is associated with a nearly $25,000 drop in per-course operating costs. Per-course operating costs are accounted for by dividing the number of courses taught in 2009-10 as reported by universities with general operating expenditures reported in university financial data. It is worth noting that this graph tracks savings associated with new faculty hires. Through allowing some current professors to migrate to teaching-focused roles, the savings could be even more dramatic.

If cost savings were to be the motivation of government action over the next several years, as was noted by HEQCO President Harvey Weingarten, policymakers would do well to note that investing in teaching capacity at current institutions will result in savings, avoiding the massive start-up costs and capital expenditures associated with new institutions. This is not to pretend that there would not be concurrent reductions in research capacity; however, it is worth discussing if it is an effective use of our resources to have all tenured faculty devote as much or more time to research as teaching. We already grant teaching releases to faculty who demonstrate research or administrative strengths; perhaps the time is right to explore doing the same for those that excel in teaching.

The second perspective perspective came from Dr. George Fallis, a former Dean of Arts and Science at York University. Fallis argued that the higher education system does not need further expansion and is already the size it needs to be. His point was essentially that the system currently accommodates well over 75 per cent participation from a theoretical incoming class of 18 year olds. At such a high level or participation, Dr. Fallis wondered whether expansion in higher education was really necessary.

My immediate thought was that an analysis simply of 18-year-old cohorts does not fully take into account current demands on the system. For instance, mature and out-of-province students have been entering post-secondary education in growing numbers, while the proportion of 18-year-old students entering university directly from high school is shrinking. Demand for continuing education and retraining all drive demand for growth in the post-secondary sector. It also falsely assumes that the current economic demands for post-secondary graduates – thought to be around 70 per cent – are met because of the younger cohort, despite the overall working-age populations having a smaller post-secondary attainment rate.

Additionally, the current profile of high school entrants to post-secondary education is not very similar to the profile of students who delay or do not attend at all. Students not attending post-secondary education are more likely to be from under-represented backgrounds, whose participation will be critical to the success of Ontario’s future economy, to say nothing of the role universities play in creating and reproducing social mobility.

All in all, the day was quite interesting, with a variety of perspectives that should be considered by policymakers as the province contemplates its election promise to build three new campuses.

-Chris Martin
OUSA Research Director

TORONTO, February 7 / – The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) submitted its recommendations today to the Ontario government on how to strengthen its regulatory framework on tuition fees. The current regulations, set to expire this academic year, have allowed tuition fees to increase by five per cent annually for six consecutive years, making Ontario the most expensive province to study in Canada.

“For the first time in the history of the province, Ontario’s students now contribute as much to the operating costs of universities as the government does,” said Sean Madden, President of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA). “At this critical juncture, students are urging the government to reduce the cap on tuition increases moving forward.”

The submission, Tomorrow’s Tuition: A New Framework for Affordable Higher Education, outlines students’ proposals for a fair and affordable tuition framework. This includes the necessary step of limiting tuition increases to no more than inflation, while government increases per-student operating grants to cover reasonable inflationary costs. The submission also urges the government to utilize a uniform tuition cap to flatten the escalating cost disparities that exist between programs, and ensure international tuition predictability beyond the first year.

Students are also calling on the government to enforce fair tuition payment processes that would put an end to flat-fee billing and charging deferral fees to students who cannot pay their full tuition fees before the start of the first term. The new proposed regulations would require institutions to charge on a per-credit basis and at reasonable deadlines. The submission also contains a number of suggested improvements to the design and eligibility of the new Ontario tuition grant to have the maximum impact and better support high-need students.

“The government’s significant investment in tuition grants will be quickly eroded if fees are allowed to increase well above inflation,” continued Madden. “We are looking forward to continued work together to protect the investment and build an accessible and high quality post-secondary education system.”

Copies of the submission are available on our website. The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance represents the interests of over 145,000 professional and undergraduate, full- and part-time university students from nine student associations.

OUSA's Tuition Submission