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

“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

For a variety of reasons, institutions have shifted considerably towards that expanded research missions, which has had the effect of fostering culture that ties a professor’s personal and professional progression to their research activities and outputs… an environment often referred to as “publish or perish”. It is not hard to see, in this environment, the concern then that a faculty member focusing their activities on the act of teaching might compromise their career and resign them to a “second tier” of faculty; a fear outlined by the Ontario Confederation of Faculty Associations (OCUFA) in a 2009 background paper entitled Career Limiting Move? Teaching-only Positions in Ontario Universities. OCUFA subsequently released a set of principles for teaching-stream appointments, namely that: the positions should have job security, progression, protection of academic freedom, and equal pay; that there be flexibility for faculty members to move between research- and teaching-stream appointments; and that scholarship must remain an activity of all faculty members. These are important principles that OUSA wholeheartedly endorse.

While it is important that professorship include elements of scholarship, service and research, it is important that steps be taken to change the culture of “publish or perish.” Not only has this culture limited the teaching productivity of Ontario universities, but it has also limited the career aspirations of professors that may wish to focus on teaching over research. Despite the stereotype, our universities do employ professors who would like to be able to devote more time to teaching.

For example, a study by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario surveyed the job satisfaction of faculty members who would be considered as working in a teaching stream and found that an overwhelming majority of teaching stream faculty (TSF), some 87 percent, reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their work. Further, 75 percent of those TSF surveyed indicated that they would prefer their current stream even if offered the opportunity to engage in a more ‘traditional’ discipline-based research and teaching faculty position. Two other interesting findings from this study show that only half of the survey respondents had originally aspired to a teaching-focused role yet grew to find satisfaction in the work, and that a significant majority of respondents felt that the presence of teaching-focused streams had positive impacts on their colleagues, departments and institutions as a whole. Indeed, anecdotal evidence from those institutions with these positions suggests students have higher stratification with teaching-focused faculty who tend to have greater passion for teaching and are more available outside of the classroom. As students are poised to become the primary contributor to the operating budgets of our institutions, it stands to reason that institutions should come to acknowledge student priorities to a greater degree than currently. Increased teaching productivity is certainly one of these priorities and teaching focused faculty provides an excellent means to achievement of it.

This is not to say that we as students do not benefit from the presence of cutting-edge research in the classroom, but there are two important things to consider in its delivery. The first seems obvious: that in order for students to benefit from scholarly research, whether being delivered by the person conducting it or not, the research has to be taught to students. This is achievable if research is integrated into course curricula, or undergraduates are brought into the research process itself. Second is that it must be thoughtfully balanced with teaching responsibilities so that instructors have the time to develop students capable of rising to the complex challenges of today’s changing world. Our Ivory Towers are increasingly a subject of interest as the public and consumers are expected to fork over considerable sums on the faith that higher education will deliver citizens equipped to compete in the 21^st century workforce. It would seem to me that having students see less of those best equipped and compensated to provide inspiration and education is an inefficient use of those resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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