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