OUSA

In my experience, work integrated learning has been beneficial for students attending my university, as it prepares us to enter the workforce with relevant, transferable, and marketable skills. Work-integrated learning combines professional work experience with classroom studies where students benefit from application of knowledge to real-word situations. Additionally, students have the opportunity to network and make the connections with employers that ultimately do wonders in the transition from academia to the workforce.

There are many different models of work integrated learning, such as co-op terms, entrepreneurship and applied research. Institutions currently offer a wide variety of work integrated learning opportunities, but would do well to put an even greater emphasis on it in the coming years.

One of the greatest achievements during my undergraduate degree has been my involvement within the university and surrounding community. Alongside my academic career, I have been building up my extra-curricular experience by getting involved with the student association, local not-for-profit organizations, and jobs within my desired field. Through these opportunities I have been able to build connections that make me considerably more optimistic about my employment prospects than I would otherwise be. Moreover, they have changed my outlook my potential career. I began my university career thinking that I would like to become a high school teacher. When I took some courses that involved teaching opportunities, I came to realize that teaching was not the right area for me. If it was not for the opportunities I had to experience teaching in my undergraduate degree, I would have gone through my five years and then finally realized I was not ready to be a teacher.

Other experiential courses have furnished me with working knowledge of other fields. For instance, the case studies I took in my business courses opened my eyes to the business world, a field I didn’t intend to take an interest in initially.

Work-integrated learning serves as an effective bridge between academia and the labour force. In a 2010 report from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, almost all employers that had employed students through work-integrated learning programs indicated that they re-hired those students upon graduation. Additionally, they indicated high levels of satisfaction with the candidates that participate in programs, indicating that work-integrated learning offers dividends for the individual, as well as the companies that help facilitate it.

An expansion of the number of work-integrated learning opportunities would not only allow more students the opportunity to adjust their pathway as they learn more about the working world (as I did), but could also help universities improve their employment outcomes and better prepare students for the jobs of the future.

-Kelly Vanleyden
President, Trent in Oshawa Student Association

The last few months have been busier than any other time in recent memory at OUSA, largely due to the introduction and implementation of the new Ontario tuition grant. One troubling aspect about the debate surrounding the grant is how isolated it has been to the grant program itself. What has been lost in a heated public discussion over eligibility is how this new grant will interact with existing financial assistance available through the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). Moreover, with the full implementation of the tuition grant scheduled for this coming September, the time is right to start examining it’s relationship with other grant programs, with an eye to making the system as seamless and understandable as possible.

For instance, almost none of the coverage of the tuition grant has mentioned that Ontario has had a grant program designed to reduce tuition for low-income students in place for quite some time: the Ontario Access Grants. Proposed initially by the Honourable Bob Rae during his review of Ontario higher education in 2005, these grants are currently only available to first- or second-year students from low-income families and are administered through OSAP. If a student’s parents’ net income is below the cut-off for the National Child Benefit supplement ($41,544 in 2011-12 for two-child family), the grant is worth up to 50% of their tuition, to a maximum of $3,000 per year. Students whose parents’ net income is above the cut-off for the NCBS, but below an income ceiling ($83,724 in 2011-12 for two-child family), can receive between 25% and 50% of their tuition covered through the grant. Last year, around one in five OSAP recipients (approximately 55,000 students) received the Ontario Access Grant at a total expense of approximately $96 million.

So if Ontario already has a grant program worth 50 per cent of tuition for some students, how does this interact with the new tuition grant worth 30 per cent of average tuition?

Currently, the government is not providing the new tuition grant to those students already receiving the Ontario Access Grants in excess of the new grant’s value. In other words, university students receiving $1,600 in Access Grant will not receive any additional grant funding from the tuition grant. This will be particularly confusing for those eligible for 25 per cent of tuition through the Ontario Access Grant and then a further 5 per cent off through the new grant. These students will undoubtedly be surprised when their additional aid only comes to an additional five per cent off tuition, though advertisements and media have been indicating that the value would be thirty.

Due to the reality that the new tuition grant and the currently existing access grants work in similar ways to reduce tuition, we suggest that the grant programs be harmonized. This harmonization could occur at no additional cost to the government.

For instance, current funds spent on Access Grants could be re-directed to create another tier of the tuition grant worth 50 per cent of tuition fees for those students with family incomes eligible for the NCBS (the same eligibility criteria as the Ontario Access Grants). The sliding scale that is currently used could continue for those above $41,544 but below the current threshold to receive 30% of average tuition fees ($50,350). Those above $50,350 net income but below the $160,000 income cutoff for the tuition grant would then receive 30% of average tuition fees. In essence, no student would receive any different more or less grant than currently, but it would be administered as one grant.

This move would accomplish a few important things. First, since the tuition grant program is available to non-OSAP students, it would open the Ontario Access Grant program to debt-averse students who are unwilling to take on student loans in order to pay for post-secondary education (due to the fact that Access Grants are only available to OSAP recipients). Studies have shown that debt-aversion is higher amongst low-income, Aboriginal and first generation students, meaning that this could extend assistance to high-need populations without forcing them into student debt. Second, the future of the tuition grant program has been imagined such that it would come directly off student tuition bills. Harmonization would allow the Ontario Access Grant money to come off tuition bills directly, increasing their visibility to students.

As the province moves towards a period of fiscal restraint, it will be more important than ever to utilize current resources effectively. Moving the Ontario Access Grants outside of the Ontario Student Assistance Program would be a tangible step towards opening an important program to students who may need it the most, without incurring significant additional costs.

The tuition grant program has been a huge step forward for non-repayable assistance, not only due to the size of the investment, but also the window it has opened to improvement of other programs.

-Chris Martin
Director of Research

This week I had the opportunity to attend the Student Pathways in Higher Education conference in Toronto, hosted by the College University Consortium Council. This conference brought together registrars and administration from every university and college in Ontario, officials from the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities, as well as sector stakeholders groups such as the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the College Student Alliance. They were gathered at in order to discuss research findings and progress from the previous year on the Ontario credit transfer system, as well announcing this coming year’s projects and next steps. The Honourable Glen Murray, HEQCO President Harvey Weingarten as well as several university presidents spoke to the importance of moving Ontario towards a more open credit mobility system in Ontario, showcasing examples from across the world where other countries are leading Ontario in the field in student mobility. In particular, the Minister spoke about the increasing mobility of the European and Australian higher education systems.

Credit transfer is the ability for a student to move from one institution to another while receiving recognition for previous learning, and is becoming an ever more central piece of the discussion around academic reform and post-secondary efficiency. It is clear for all stakeholders that the ability for students to have mobility between parallel institutions and as well as between colleges and universities is going to be key to improving accessibility as well as reducing student and government cost duplication. The future success of the Province of Ontario is going to be built on an educated work force that can adapt to new technologies and new ways of doing business, and having a post-secondary education sector that can accommodate this dynamic economic environment is going to be essential for the long-term prosperity for all Ontarians.

From a student perspective, it will be incredibly important that the system become more transparent, consistent and supportive for transfer students. Transparency refers to the ability of students to know how many of their credits will transfer, what expectations will be put upon them, and why decisions to transfer some credits and not others are finally made. Though the number of articulation agreements between colleges and universities has grown, credit transfer is a particularly daunting process for students who transfer outside the boundaries of these agreements (as is the case with most university-to-university transfer). Consistency refers to a common set of criteria, language and processes being used to transfer credits across higher education institutions. Currently, students face differing policies and expectations of transfer students at each university and college, creating an unreasonably complicated system for students to navigate. Support refers to an assurance that students transferring from institutions with real differences will be adequately transitioned. Whether this takes place through orientation weeks, bridging programs or increased use of credit transfer advisors, it is important that credit transfer networks set students up for success.

This conference is the first of what hopefully becomes an annual gathering of representatives from across the sector to explore and develop the credit transfer system in Ontario. From what I have learned in the past two days, I believe the value of it can not be overstated. I want to thank the organizers and participants for their openness and dedication to improving our system. This year my policy paper is on Credit Transfer and this conference has provided me an with incredible amount of new knowledge and exciting ideas on where credit transfer is and where it needs to go to enable the post-secondary sector in Ontario to move forward with a robust system of student mobility.

-Luke Speers
Vice President University Affairs
Brock University Students’ Union

Last Friday and Saturday, OUSA had the pleasure of attending the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Association’s annual conference entitled “Ensuring Student Success.” The conference was filled with stimulating speakers and insightful panels exploring several aspects of this important topic.

It was refreshing to see a conference so focused on what OUSA believes should be at the core of any discussion on quality: ensuring student success before, during and after post-secondary education. The conference started out with an excellent introduction by one of my favourite researchers, Dr. Tony Chambers of OISE, who laid out the critical connection between access for underrepresented groups and student success. Panels and presentations followed on critical areas, like online education, libraries, support services and open learning.

A discussion about the quality of university education can often get bogged down with distractions, especially when the conversation becomes fixated on measuring criteria like student-to-faculty ratios and student retention rates. Thankfully, there were relatively few points during last week’s conference where the big picture was lost. The less productive moments of the conference included a panellist who suggested that there are too many students in university that are not capable of handling the academic rigour, and another who argued that professors should resist the movement away from the lecture model – contradicting the majority of current research on enrolment demand and student learning.

Fittingly, the conference also started the same day that a really interesting article came out in the New York Times from the former President of Harvard University Lawrence Summers. While I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Summers says, his article laid out some important truths for student success:

1. “Education will be more about how to process and use information and less about imparting it” due to the proliferation of knowledge and changes in technology.
2. Collaboration is increasingly important and students will need to be evaluated on individual effort less.
3. Electronic textbooks and hybrid learning are going to free up classroom time for more direct discussion.
4. Our understanding of human thought has advanced – and now we know that active learning works better than passive learning.
5. International experiences and understanding are increasingly important, though perhaps the same cannot be said of foreign language fluency.
6. “Courses of study will place much more emphasis on the analysis of data.”

He ends with a line that Ontario’s professors and universities would do well to take heed of: “A good rule of thumb for many things in life holds that things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then happen faster than you thought they could… Here is a bet and a hope that the next quarter century will see more change in higher education than the last three combined.”

In many ways, things are changing quickly at our universities. The proliferation of student success offices and centres for teaching and learning are just two examples of renewed commitment to quality education. But more must be done. One can look to the culture change that has taken hold in Ontario’s primary school classrooms over the past few years, in which teachers now believe and take responsibility for making sure every child succeeds through to graduation. I want to thank OCUFA for providing a forum for discussing the next steps necessary to build a university system that also truly ensures success for every student.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director

On the whole the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance views the new Ontario tuition grant as a significant step forward for financial assistance in the province. As details of the grant are rolled out, certain student populations are learning that they are ineligible for the program, some of which OUSA wishes to work with the government to change going forward. Students in five-year co-operative education programs are one such example.

The government has expressed a keen interest in expanding its experiential learning opportunities in order to improve the quality of education, and the work readiness of Ontario’s students. The Ontario government’s Putting Students First plan placed among its goals was to “place more emphasis on programs at colleges and universities that promote experiential teaching and learning, such as co-operative education, internships, undergraduate research opportunities and international exchanges.” Furthermore, one key goal in the Ministry of Research and Innovation’s Strategic Plan is to build human potential. It states, “we need to rebalance the learning environment by providing more exposure to experiential-based learning … with a focus on people at the post-secondary education level …”

With this important mission in mind, the government should seek to incentivize co-operative and experiential learning programs wherever possible, ensuring that no financial barriers exist for students participating in these fantastic learning opportunities. Co-op students add incredible value to the Ontario economy, and local communities. They also support the long-term health of the Ontario economy, as co-op students have been found to integrate expediently into the workforce and gain meaningful work related to their field of study shortly after graduating.

Unfortunately, students who have been out of high school for four years or more are ineligible for the new tuition grant. Co-op students who are in their fifth year are independent students, and therefore their parent’s income does not count toward their OSAP needs assessment, which typically allows these students to access significantly more financial aid through this channel. However, this eligibility requirement is proving problematic for a whole host of independent and mature students, but for now I want to focus on the specific intricacies of fifth-year co-op students that should be considered when looking at their eligibility.

The most obvious and compelling argument is that extending eligibility to students in five-year co-op programs would not result in any additional investment for the government for each individual student. These students only pay four years of tuition fees, but they are spread out over five years due to alternating academic and work terms. Arguably, all eligible students who enter from high school directly should receive four grants – regardless of if their four-year program keeps them on campus for five years.

Co-op students incur additional costs through ancillary fees related to co-op and co-op fees, as well as the cost of an additional year of ‘student living’, and moving multiple times throughout their academic careers.  In the case of the University of Waterloo, one of the province’s most co-op intensive institutions in which the majority of students are in a co-op program, students pay up to an additional $3,500 over the course of their education to cover these costs.

Secondly, policy makers (and critics) should resist the temptation to view co-op as any sort of student financial aid. Co-op opportunities pay varying amounts, and are sometimes voluntary in nature. Students enrolled in co-op programs should not be forced into the position of selecting which opportunities they will pursue based on their need to fund their education through co-op. While this will be an important consideration for many students regardless of access to student financial aid, students should have the ability to choose the opportunities most beneficial to their careers in the long term. As the government and institutions across the province look to expand experiential learning opportunities to community, co-curricular, and non-profit ventures, we must be increasingly mindful of the undesired consequences of treating co-op salaries as a form of student financial aid.

-Natalie Cockburn
VP Education, University of Waterloo Federation of Students

An article in the London Free Press last year compared the University of Western Ontario to an island. While geographically it fits this image as a landmass carved out by the Thames River, Western is not unique in this analogy. Just like an island, universities in Ontario are places where people go to for periods of time, but not forever, and manage to live off of the resources available to them until they choose to move on. They are both physical islands, landmasses frequented only by a certain transient population, and mental islands, often seen as bubbles of thought and life. As each September rolls around, students arrive to these urban islands to spend the next eight months thinking about the world outside of their bubble while rarely ever leaving its perimeter.

Our universities do more than just provide education and instruction to the students who attend. Through essential university support services, life on campus exists well beyond the classroom setting. Services dedicated to student health, sports and recreation, academic support and student development make these islands more than just places of thought; they are places of life.

While many students will not have a physical bedroom on campus after their first year, it is uncommon to find students who do not consider campus to be their second home after all the time they spend on it daily. (I remember my mother in my final two years of university seeing me less than my professors did because of the amount of time I spent on campus and not at home.) But it is because of the support services that exist at our institutions that allow us to survive without having to head home when classes finish. Writing clinics, peer support groups and mentorship programs help students excel in their studies and are provided by learning services centres on campuses. Along with academic help, these centres support student growth and development, and provide a service that sometimes cannot be found at home or in a dorm room. Also the presences of eateries on campuses are like the necessary fruit trees every island needs – you can eat, sleep and study all in one place.

While many support services are provided by the university itself, student governments provide multiple services that are not offered by the university. At Western, the LGBT support service, PrideWestern, and Student Appeals Support Centre are both run by the University Students’ Council. These services, along with the Women’s Issues Network, the Ethnocultural Support Service, the USC Foodbank, and others add to the value of the undergraduate experience. Again, Western is not unique for this model, with students often filling in gaps their institutions leave unfilled.

Stories of successful student-university synergy can be told about support services as well. In the late 1980’s after a series of sexual assaults against women on campuses occurred across Canada, students rallied together to form safe walk programs. Today, many of these are now run under the Campus Police departments of universities, and are considered by students to be essential in maintaining a safe and comfortable campus.

As our universities continue to evolve, so must our support services. Many of these services mentioned before are entirely funded by student ancillary fees despite being run by the universities themselves. These services are essential to the growth and development of our students, of our campuses, and our future. Therefore, the government needs to keep these in mind when allocating new funds to improve quality and enhance student success. Investments into these services can only help students achieve more, receive more and do more, and we as an organization are committed to advocating for this type of investment in the years to come.

To conclude, I bring to mind the story of Easter Island, famously known for its stone sculptures and overexploited natural environment. The people of this island devoted their life to their passion, like students do to school, but used up all of their surrounding resources to attain their goal, perishing in their pursuit. If we support our students and the services that they use daily, our students will not only meet their goals but surpass them, and leave the university island stronger than the day they arrived.

-Patrick Searle
VP University Affairs
University Students’ Council at the University of Western Ontario

This winter, schools from across Ontario will be participating in the annual OUSA Blue Chair campaign.

The empty blue chairs represent the lost potential on our university campuses and in the province of Ontario when post-secondary education becomes unattainable and altogether inaccessible. Students from across our province are regularly faced with the challenge of being unable to access post secondary education for a myriad of reasons which can include, but are not limited to financial, motivational, geographical and informational barriers. The Blue Chair Campaign is a grassroots, student-led initiative that seeks to raise awareness around the need to expand access to higher education as an equalizer of economic prosperity and social vitality.

In an attempt to raise awareness on campus and amongst students and decision makers, campuses across Ontario will be jam-packed with empty blue chairs aimed at creating awareness and taking action at reducing barriers to post secondary education. I strongly encourage you to talk to your student representatives about participating in the Blue Chair campaign and to be an advocate for the empty blue seats on campus.

Studies predict that within the next 10 years, 70% of jobs will require a post secondary credential, which means now, more than ever it is essential that more students be given the means and motivation to access higher education. I’m a huge fan of the saying “If you get the grades, you get to go” because it embodies universities as a place of higher learning that isn’t tied to financial background.

So the debate continues, is opening three new campuses the answer to the accessibility question? Not entirely. There needs to be a stronger focus on delivering innovative forms of education to students who may not have traditionally had any desire to pursue post-secondary education. Early outreach mechanisms, coupled with generous forms of financial assistance and a fair tuition framework are approaches to solving the accessibility problem, but they are definitely not standalone solutions. Most students and decision makers would be surprised to know that Ontario’s current university participation rate of 18-24 from high-income households is 49 per cent, compared with only 18 per cent from low-income households.

Please help Ontario youth find their seat.

-Alicia Ali
McMaster Students Union VP Education

Here at OUSA, we have been putting the final touches on our submission to the Ontario government on its tuition framework, set to be replaced this September. This framework governs how quickly Ontario’s universities can increase tuition fees. As I reflect on many of our concerns and recommendations with the current tuition landscape, it strikes me that the market forces behind the university system have created a dynamic that is inherently unfair for students.

Ontario’s university system – like most around the world – is essentially an oligopoly (a market dominated by a small number of providers that are price setters rather than price takers). The decisions and practices of one provider influence the others. This results when the barriers to entering the market are high. In the case of universities, the barriers to new providers granting degrees are typically legal, economies of scale and that the product’s value is largely determined by the provider’s reputation. There are plenty of examples of oligopolies in Canada, including the airline industry and wireless carriers.

So what’s common among our airlines, wireless carriers and universities? Well, for one, unjustified pricing schemes and hidden fees. To get a sense for what I mean, I’ll provide some examples. At 11 universities, students taking a reduced course load of three or four courses each term have to pay for the full five courses regardless. Students at most universities have to pay their fall and winter fees by the start of the fall term even if they are waiting to receive their OSAP. For example at McMaster University, you have to pay a $35 deferral fee plus 1.2% interest monthly on outstanding fees. At Algoma University, the fee is $100 to defer half your payment. Students at the University of Toronto must submit a minimum payment of 65% of their total fees by late August. If a student has to drop out after that, the minimum payment is non-refundable. At the University of Waterloo and several others, engineering and commerce students will pay more than twice what arts and sciences students pay for the exact same elective course. Many students are now reporting they have to pay a fee or purchase on-line products to take mandatory assignments and tests on top of their tuition. Several universities also make students pay a fee to submit their intent to graduate, if they’re going to the convocation ceremony or not. None of these practices are, in my opinion, fair.

Some have argued that reducing regulations on price (tuition) will put higher education providers in competition with each other, keeping prices down. This “free market” approach has been tried in many jurisdictions and it has never worked. England’s current tuition woes speak for themselves. The barriers to entry I described before exist regardless of the government regulations in place. I am also not suggesting that the solution is necessarily government micro-managing of all of universities’ affairs.

However, when the internal governance processes of publicly-supported institutions are unable to conduct their pricing practices in a fair and reasonable way, we believe that the government should use their funding and regulatory levers to fix it. As has been tried with wireless carriers, the Ontario government has the power to influence what it deems to be unfair fees or practices. In the coming months, OUSA will be talking a lot more about its proposals to add regulations to the tuition framework for a fairer system, particularly billing each term and per-credit. If student voices are heard in the coming months, a stronger and fairer framework will ensure that we’ll only have our baggage fees and cell phone contracts to complain about come September.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director

The condition of social services on Aboriginal reserves has attracted some attention in the media recently, particularly with the state of emergency in Attawapiskat First Nation. As usual, most of the attention has fixated on determining who is “responsible” for the situation. The provincial government pointed to the federal government, the federal government implicated the Attawapiskat Band Council, and the council cast blame back squarely on the shoulders of unresponsive government officials.

Casting the question of responsibility aside, it is hard to deny that Attawapiskat, like many Aboriginal communities in Canada, has social services that are chronically underfunded. Given that over a third of Attawapiskat’s on reserve population is under the age of 19, education funding is particularly important. A recent comparison undertaken by the Chiefs of Ontario found that band schools receive approximately 35% less of the per-student funding that students in the provincial system receive. Much of this discrepancy stems from a 2% annual cap on federal funding for education that has been in place since 1996. Statistics Canada estimates that educational costs from the 1997-1998 to 2003-2004 school year increased by 3.5% annually, and have further risen since. The population of school-aged First Nations youth has outpaced this growth substantially during this period as well. Federal funding has not kept pace with the increasing costs of providing a quality education at the primary and secondary levels.

Attawapiskat First Nation also has a severe shortage of physical space for instruction. The community’s only primary school, J.R. Nakogee School, has been closed since May 2000 because of site contamination from a diesel leak. This has left students housed in temporary portables. More than a decade and four federal Indian Affairs Ministers later, funds still have not been provided for a new school.

The provincial government has been reluctant to step up to the plate and fill this funding gap, since, in accordance with legally-binding treaty agreements, First Nations education is a federal responsibility. The federal government has refused to lift the 2% cap on neither funding for First Nations education or on the Post-Secondary Student Support Program for Status Indian and recognized Inuit post-secondary students, citing effectiveness and fiscal constraints. In the end, Attawapiskat’s youth suffer. Parents are reluctant to send their children to substandard schools, and inadequate preparation not only leaves students lacking the hard skills necessary for success in a post-secondary environment, it also impacts student confidence and motivation.

Education is certainly not the only issue facing Attawapiskat First Nation, but it is a crucial one. Children and youth require early support to develop the professional and personal skills they need to become strong contributors to their communities and the economy. All Aboriginal students deserve access to a culturally appropriate and supportive primary, secondary and post-secondary education system that meets their learning needs – whether on reserve or off. Rather than finger-pointing and blame shifting, the provincial and federal governments should be working together with Aboriginal communities to improve the education systems available to all Aboriginal students.

Sam Andrey is the Executive Director of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, and Zach Dayler is the National Director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. With files from Laura Pin.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

L’état d’urgence du Canada – Par Sam Andrey et Zach Dayler

L’état des services sociaux sur les réserves des Autochtones a récemment attiré l’attention des médias, particulièrement depuis que l’état d’urgence a été décrété chez la Première nation d’Attawapiskat. Comme d’habitude, on a surtout concentré nos efforts à tenter d’identifier le « responsable » de la situation. Le gouvernement provincial a mentionné le gouvernement fédéral, le gouvernement fédéral accuse le conseil de la bande d’Attawapiskat, et les membres du conseil jettent carrément le blâme sur les représentants passifs du gouvernement.

En écartant la question de la responsabilité, il est difficile de nier que les Attawapiskat, comme beaucoup de communautés autochtones au Canada, manquent périodiquement de financement pour leurs services sociaux. Étant donné que plus d’un tiers de la population de la réserve d’Attawapiskat est âgée de moins de 19 ans, le financement en éducation est particulièrement important. Une comparaison effectuée récemment par les chefs de l’Ontario a montré que les écoles de bandes reçoivent un financement par étudiant inférieur d’environ 35 % par rapport à celui que reçoivent les étudiants du système provincial. Cet écart est attribuable en grande partie à la limite annuelle de 2 % sur le financement fédéral pour l’éducation, qui est en vigueur depuis 1996. Statistique Canada estime que les coûts en éducation entre l’année scolaire 1997-1998 et l’année scolaire 2003-2004 ont augmenté de 3,5 % par année, et qu’ils ont continué d’accroître depuis. De plus, la population de jeunes d’âge scolaire au sein des Premières nations a connu une croissance beaucoup plus importante pendant cette période. Le financement fédéral n’a pas été adapté à l’augmentation des coûts permettant la prestation d’un enseignement de qualité aux niveaux primaire et secondaire.

La Première nation d’Attawapiskat a également souffert d’un manque crucial d’espace physique voué à l’instruction. La seule école primaire de la communauté, l’école J.R. Nakogee, a fermé ses portes en mai 2000, en raison d’une contamination du site par une fuite de diesel. Cet incident a nécessité le placement des étudiants dans des classes temporaires. Plus d’une décennie et quatre ministres fédéraux des Affaires indiennes plus tard, les fonds pour la construction d’une nouvelle école n’ont toujours pas été alloués.

Le gouvernement provincial s’est montré hésitant à faire sa part et à combler cet écart de financement, étant donné que le fédéral est responsable de l’éducation des Premières nations, d’après les traités juridiquement contraignants qu’il a conclus. Le gouvernement fédéral a refusé d’augmenter la limite de 2 %, tant pour l’éducation des Premières nations que pour le Programme d’aide aux étudiants de niveau postsecondaire destiné aux Indiens inscrits et aux  étudiants inuits reconnus de niveau postsecondaire, en mentionnant l’efficacité et les contraintes budgétaires. Au bout du compte, ce sont les jeunes d’Attawapiskat qui en souffrent. Les parents hésitent à envoyer leurs enfants à des écoles non conformes, et une préparation inadéquate prive les étudiants des aptitudes complexes nécessaires à leur réussite dans le milieu postsecondaire, en plus de nuire à leur confiance et à leur motivation.

L’éducation n’est certes pas le seul problème auquel est confrontée la Première nation d’Attawapiskat, mais il s’agit d’un problème crucial. Les enfants et les jeunes ont besoin d’un soutien dès leur jeune âge pour être en mesure de développer les habiletés professionnelles et personnelles qui leur permettront de participer activement à leur communauté et à l’économie. Tous les étudiants autochtones méritent d’avoir accès à un système d’éducation primaire, secondaire et postsecondaire qui est adapté à leur culture et qui répond à leurs besoins, sur la réserve ou à l’extérieur. Plutôt que de pointer des gens du doigt et de porter des accusations, les gouvernements fédéral et provincial devraient collaborer avec les communautés autochtones pour améliorer les systèmes d’éducation accessibles à tous les étudiants autochtones.

Sam Andrey est le directeur général de l’Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, et Zach Dayler est le directeur national de l’Alliance canadienne des associations étudiantes. Avec les dossiers de Laura Pin.

Last November, students passed a new policy on university accountability that called on the government to end its current performance funding regime, instead using the funding to directly support initiatives to improve quality. Currently, the government tracks four Key Performance Indicators, three of which are tied to a small portion of university funding. Based on progress in annual graduation rates and employment rates six months and two years after graduation, universities receive a portion of an envelope of funds provided by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. In 2010-11, the province issued approximately $23 million in performance funding, comprising less than a single percentage of total operating funding for universities.

The fund was implemented by the Ontario government in 2001, and initially split universities into three tiers, based on their performance. The top tier received two-thirds of the fund, the middle tier received one-third of the fund, and the bottom tier received no funding at all. This system arguably did not fairly distribute funds; often, the performance difference between being in the top and bottom third was within the statistical margin of error. The formula was quickly changed to more fairly assess university performance. The Ministry set a benchmark for each particular indicator at 10% below the system average. In order to be eligible for funding, the institution must have met the benchmark. The amount of funding for eligible institutions was then calculated using a formula that takes both size of the institution and their success in achieving high rates. This system is currently in place today.

There remain problems with the current performance framework, however. First, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) do not provide very useful information. Measuring aggregate employment rates recently after graduation gives no indication of whether the graduate is working in a firm related to their studies, nor the relative success of graduates compared to those that did not attend post-secondary studies. More importantly, the data does not tell us whether the graduate is satisfied with the relationship between their field of study and their employment after graduation. Moreover, as the latest data indicates, there is very little variation between employment KPIs.

How then can the performance envelope be changed to be more useful to students, institutions and the government? Students suggest two things: first, the envelope of funding itself should be eliminated and re-directed towards direct quality improvement. Second, a more robust set of Key Performance Indicators should be developed and reported, but not attached to funding.

For example, employment rates after graduation are also a statistic that can easily be misconstrued. Just because a student is employed after university does not mean they are employed in their field of study, or even in gainful employment. If a student is working part-time, in temporary employment, or at a minimum wage job, it is plausible to assume that many of these students believe that their higher education isn’t being fully utilized. University post-graduation employment measurements should take into account underemployment and unsatisfactory employment to be truly holistic. A more robust measurement could be a more accurate representation of the quality of a degree for students.

Regardless of what future KPIs or accountability schemes are comprised of, the performance-funding envelope currently neither collects useful information nor provides enough funding to noticeably affect institutional behavior. In practice, institutions are measured according to metrics they have little-to-no control over, making any measure of performance dubious at best.

Jurisdictions around the world have tried performance funding for universities – and all have been disappointed by the results. One could though look to Ontario’s K-12 system for inspiration where the results of standardized testing are not used to punish under-performing schools, but to direct resources to lift everyone up. But as it stands now, even if a better set of metrics were to be developed, performance funding for universities would simply reward institutions that perform well and do nothing for areas of the system in need of improvement.

-Kimberly Orr
Vice-President (University Affairs)
University of Windsor Students’ Alliance