OUSA

Saving for a child’s education is the most important savings goal of Canadian parents according to a 2008 poll. In fact, over 73 per cent of Ontario children under 18 have parents who have saved for future post-secondary studies, up from less than half just a decade ago. Amid a changing economy and rising costs for post-secondary education, this is good news.

The most common savings vehicle is the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESPs). Introduced in 1972, RESPs allow for savings to accumulate tax free, and the federal government has since introduced non-repayable incentives to encourage their use. In large part, the program has been a success.

According to Statistics Canada, close to half (47%) of Canadian children had savings held in RESPs in 2008. This is a significant increase from past results of 18% in 1999 and 29% in 2002. The proportion of children with RESP savings was higher in Ontario (51%) and increases in younger age cohorts. The Canadian University Survey Consortium’s triennial survey of first-year students shows the proportion of students using RESPs to finance their education is on the rise. Most telling of all, the total assets held in RESPs has increased from $4 billion in 1998 to $26 billion in 2009.

Despite their rising popularity though, RESPs continue to be disproportionally used by families that are more educated and have higher incomes. The table below shows the proportion of children under 18 with post-secondary savings and those with an RESP from Statistics Canada’s 2008 Access and Support to Education and Training Survey. Family income and parental education continue to dramatically impact the likelihood of having an RESP – high-income families are two-and-a-half times more likely to make use of them than their low-income counterparts.

In some ways, it is inevitable that a savings vehicle will be accessed less frequently by those with less income available to be saved. Another Statistics Canada study from just last week confirms that many low-income families are struggling to save for both retirement and post-secondary education – the proportion saving for both jumps from 21 per cent in the lowest-income families to 78 per cent in the highest-income families.

However, the Canada Education Savings Grants (CESGs) and Canada Learning Bonds (CLBs) were both designed to increase participation and saving among lower-income families, but have yet to have the desired effect. The CLB in particular has failed to reach its potential. It initially provides $500 and $100 annually thereafter to low-income children (family income below $38,832) regardless of whether parents contribute, but only 19% of eligible children received the CLB in 2009. Similar matching programs exist in several other provinces – an idea worth considering here in Ontario.

RESPs have certainly received a lot of attention lately, particularly with the Liberal Party of Canada’s promise in the last election to use them as a vehicle to deliver more student aid. But before provincial or federal governments consider putting more resources into such a program, we should be sure that it will have the kind of impact we hope for. Considering the critical importance of equal access to post-secondary education, it is worth considering why the benefits of RESPs continue to be accessed unequally and what steps could be taken to improve the situation.

Lack of income certainly has something to do with it, but information plays a key role as well. In March 2008, EKOS Research Associates Inc. conducted a survey of low-income families. They found that while 83% of respondents had heard of an RESP, only 54% were able to define it. Only one-third of respondents had heard of CESGs, and only one in twelve correctly understood how the grants operate. Lack of awareness was lowest for the CLB, where only 1 in 10 had heard of the CLB, and 59% of those who had could not provide any further details. A lack of communication on the RESP process and operations has been cited as a key hurdle in improving participation.

A common response to such findings is to make registration for the CLB, or even an RESP, automatic. The idea certainly has merit, but it has both logistical and privacy implications that would need to be tackled by the federal government and the many financial institutions that offer RESPs. In the mean time, if the Government of Ontario wanted to encourage saving for post-secondary education, there are several opportunities to encourage families to sign-up that are under provincial control. The most obvious possibility is to have families register for an RESP for their child when they apply for a birth certificate. Other opportunities exist as well, such as when a child is first registered to attend school in Ontario or when a parent first reports a child on their tax return. By placing RESP registration and information alongside opportunities where the Province has direct contact with parents, it may create an atmosphere that these saving vehicles are an expectation, not a luxury.

While there may be some logistical barriers to work through, it’s a simple idea that would cost the Province next to nothing, and that could have a large impact on participation in the program. For a government that has prioritized access to education, encouraging parents to give every child a head start seems like too good an opportunity to pass up.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director

Last Thursday and Friday, Sam Andrey and I had the opportunity to attend the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario’s conference on measuring the value of a postsecondary education. Over the course of two days, academics, administrators and others exploring the field of quality measurement gave presentations on how and why the Ontario post-secondary education sector should work to ensure that institutions are producing tangible learning outcomes for students. Additionally, questions were asked of what outcomes should or shouldn’t be and what frameworks have been adopted internationally in order to assess these outcomes.

The conference was an excellent opportunity to bring together a wide variety of stakeholders in educational quality and will hopefully be the starting point to an increasingly necessary province-wide discussion on the subject. With student contributions to university operating costs at an all-time high, ensuring that the post-secondary experience is valuable and worthwhile is a key priority of students.

After some opening remarks, Jillian Kinzie from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and Roger Benjamin of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) got the day started with a broad discussion on the approaches to quality measurement currently used by institutions, how they have been implemented and what has yet to be measured. One important distinction that was raised in this session was between the market-driven and academically-driven perspectives of accountability.

Market-driven approaches emphasize the student as a customer of institutions, who deserve certain learning outcomes by virtue of investing in the system. This approach tends to posit quality measurement as a means to ensure accountability to the student-customer. Academic approaches emphasize the personal and societal benefits of educational quality, driving the measurement discussion to a quality-improvement objective. Though students are much more than simply customers in education, increasing reliance on tuition and ancillary fees mean that the importance of an accountability dialogue cannot be understated.

Another interesting question raised during the conference pertained to the role of the professoriate in facilitating certain learning outcomes. Repeatedly throughout the conference, presenters emphasized that quality assurance processes must be embraced not just on the institution-wide level but also the program level by faculty members. Students have repeatedly confirmed the importance of faculty buy-in to quality-assurance strategies. A survey conducted of undergraduate students in 2009 confirmed that faculty availability and teaching ability were highly correlated with student satisfaction with university education, indicating that the abilities and practices of faculty members play a key role in quality assurance.

One question that gained some attention, but could have used more discussion was the role of government in quality assurance. Many of the strategies proposed by the presenters adopted a “bottom-up” grassroots approach to quality improvement. While institutional and faculty leadership is required in quality improvement, the nature of Ontario’s system affords governments the right and responsibility to ensure that students’ and taxpayers’ investments in higher education is yielding the best possible student learning outcomes. A number of people at the conference spoke of the importance of ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ in moving the system toward improvement. With the Ontario government renegotiating its accountability agreements with institutions next year, it will be interesting to see if these discussions result in the agreements playing a larger role in the strategic planning of the government and institutions.

What will be most interesting moving forward from this conference is how the sector plans to implement and re-vamp quality improvement strategies. OUSA would like to thank HEQCO and Harvey Weingarten for inviting us to a stimulating and abundantly necessary conversation on an issue of great importance to students.

-Chris Martin
OUSA Director of Research

Today is my last day as an OUSA staff member before moving on to pursue a Master in Public Policy degree at the Harvard Kennedy School. I wish to use my final blog post to reflect briefly on my two years as Executive Director. My experience here has changed me for the better, and I only hope I have done the same for OUSA.

OUSA affords young people just out of PSE the incredible and unique opportunity to take on positions of leadership and work together for change. With four dedicated home office staff, a group of extraordinary student leaders, and a shoestring budget, we manage to punch above our weight through imagination and drive. Mistakes are made along the way, but we learn from these and improve. If there is one thing that demonstrates the impact that OUSA has on those who pass through, it is the dedication of our alumni. Though they have moved on to greater things, they are always ready to leverage their experience and provide constructive input. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here, and have benefitted greatly from working with such extraordinary students and friends. It is an unparalleled experience.

If I were to select one thing that I am personally most proud of in my two years here it would be our work on the Ontario Online Institute. When the idea appeared in the Throne Speech, we knew next to nothing about online learning, but after consulting with students and experts in the field, we researched and drafted a strong submission that in many ways shaped the Institute’s development and will continue to shape it for years to come. I think the reason I enjoyed it so much was the freedom that is inherent in the topic. While most issues have been debated back and forth for decades before my time at OUSA, the Online Institute was essentially a blank canvas where we could paint a student-centred vision for the future. The outcome may not have been as flashy as a multi-million dollar investment, but the project was uniquely OUSA.

Of course, working in this sector isn’t all sunshine and lollipops, and I have had occasional frustrations. Sometimes it’s universities that are slow to change or academics unwilling to translate research into action. Other times it’s a government unwilling to assert itself or stakeholders who can’t see past their own talking points. OUSA too has its faults, but through all this we continue to achieve much together because of collaboration and, occasionally, compromise.

I said I’d be brief, so to conclude, I want to recognize a number of individuals who have offered me counsel, friendship and support and without whom my time here would not have been complete. To Howie Bender, Graeme Stewart, Jim Robeson, Deborah Newman, Bonnie Patterson, Frances Lamb, Patrick Deane, Elka Walsh, Alvin Tedjo, Laura Pin, Dan Moulton, and Sam Andrey, I offer a special thank-you.

-Alexi White
Executive Director Emeritus

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto will meet at 4:30PM today on the Mississauga campus to discuss, among other things, introducing flat-fee tuition in the Faculty of Arts and Science on a permanent basis. As the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) has pointed out, this move will increase tuition fees for some students by up to 66 per cent. To demonstrate community opposition to this change, UTSU has delivered over 4,000 petition cards to President David Naylor.

For years, Ontario universities have charged tuition fees on a per-credit basis, meaning that, for instance, a student who takes 3 credits will pay less than a student who takes 5 credits. Conversely, under the flat-fee model that is slowly spreading across Ontario, each student taking above a certain threshold of courses pays the same flat tuition fee.

As an example, we can imagine a university where a standard full-time load is five credits. Under a per-credit system, a student taking three credits – perhaps because they have a dependant child or are forced to work more hours due to a lack of financial resources – would pay three-fifths of what a student taking the full five credits would pay. A student who wishes to accelerate their degree may take six credits, but will be required to pay more for the additional credit. In the end, a degree consisting of 20 credits would cost the same if completed in four years or six years. If instead our example university moved to the flat-fee payment structure in the works at U of T, a student taking only three credits would be charged the same as a student taking a full five. Those students who wish to take more than five credits would certainly benefit under this model, but the impact on their classmates who face financial difficulty could be severe. A single parent taking a reduced number of credits is faced with a difficult choice: pay thousands more in tuition fees for the same learning or drop down to part-time status and lose OSAP assistance.

As illustrated in the above example, students have significant concerns with the flat-fee model. Not only does it have a disproportionate effect on already financially vulnerable students, at a fundamental level it asks students to pay for education they do not receive. Some universities have argued that a flat-fee model provides greater predictability to students because they know the cost of their tuition each year. But what we gain in short-term predictability we lose in long-term predictability, as students will no longer know how much they will pay over the course of their degree – something that is guaranteed in a per-credit system. Finally, it is important to note that the provincial government funds universities on a per-credit basis, rather than a flat grant for every student, and that this is unlikely to change since it would certainly cost the government more. Students ask only that they be allowed to play by the same rules.

The University of Toronto is not the only institution charging on a flat-fee basis. In fact, 10 of 20 universities now employ this model, and it is unlikely to stop there. Below is a summary of tuition models at all Ontario universities.

The flat-fee situation at the University of Toronto is particularly troubling for a number of reasons. First, while other administrations have argued that switching to flat-fee tuition is not a backdoor tuition increase, the Toronto Star reported two years ago that Dean of Arts and Science Meric Gertler has stated openly that the purpose of the switch is to generate an additional $10 million each year. Clearly, the administration is looking for ways around the government’s tuition framework, and has found one in flat-fee tuition.

Also of concern is the timing of today’s discussion. Each summer, at least one university in Ontario brings forward a contentious decision at a time when most students have left the campus. Surely the U of T administration could have debated such a critical issue at a time when those most affected could be present to provide their input. In an October 2008 open letter to the University of Toronto community, John Petch, Chair of the Governing Council, wrote: “Participating in governance – whether as a governor or as a member of the University community presenting views – carries with it the responsibility of being respectful of the rights of others: the right to be heard, the right to listen, and the right to be treated in a civil and respectful manner as issues are deliberated and important decisions made.” Given the timing of this decision, it is reasonable to ask whether the students’ right to be heard has been granted in this case.

Flat-fee tuition continues to move from institution to institution as administrators investigate new revenue sources. Students continue to push back, but it has become clear that this issue cannot be solved at the local level. Years ago, the provincial government recognized that it would be detrimental to the system to allow institutions full control over setting their own tuition fees. With half of Ontario universities now charging tuition on a flat-fee basis – a violation of the sprit if not the letter of the government’s tuition framework – students recommend that control over the way in which fees are charged should also be removed from institutions and placed under provincial jurisdiction. Institutions that have adopted flat-fee tuition will argue that returning to a per-credit model will reduce their revenue. Not only should this revenue never have been raised in the first place, but if ten universities can continue to provide a high quality education under a per-credit tuition model, why not all? If our universities cannot use their powers responsibly, the government must step in and regulate a per-credit system across the board.

-Alexi White
Executive Director Emeritus

Family Health Team

Campus healthcare is of critical importance to post-secondary students. University and college students are often living away from home for the first time, juggling multiple responsibilities and adjusting to a competitive academic environment. On top of this, youth aged 15 to 24 are at the most common age of onset for mental health issues like mood disorders and dependency problems. Students also have additional sexual health needs given that many people become sexually active during university or college.

Most post-secondary institutions have a campus health clinic; however, these clinics often face serious challenges in providing quality care to students. Currently, most physicians in campus clinics are compensated on a fee-for-service basis. There are several problems with this model in the post-secondary context. First, fee-for-service incentivizes doctors to see patients as quickly as possible, which can negatively affect the quality of care. Second, mental health services are compensated at significantly lower rate than physical diagnostic services in the fee-per service model, despite the particular importance of mental health services to university campuses. Finally, the usage of campus clinics is uneven throughout the year, peaking in November and April and declining over the winter break and summer. As a result, physicians in the fee-for-service model on campuses often receive less total compensation than those working in other communities.

For these reasons, students and other groups like the Ontario College Health Association (OCHA) are encouraging the expansion of the Family Health Team (FHT) model to university campuses.  Under the FHT model, a team of health care professionals, including family physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers, dieticians, and others work collaboratively to provide care to a community.  FHTs provide incentives for more preventative practices, particularly important for the youth population since the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care estimates that each dollar of early mental health treatment saves $30 in lost productivity and social costs. Additionally, healthcare practitioner compensation does not depend on the number of patients seen per day, but rather the number of patients enrolled in the FHT. The FHT model also helps improve the integration of different health care practitioners, which is particularly pertinent for student dealing with mental health issues that may require complex care provided by a number of professionals.

Unfortunately, the current FHT funding model imposes major barriers to their implementation on university and college campuses. For example, current patients in FHTs are required to exclusively enrol with the FHT and agree to not seek primary healthcare elsewhere. If a patient does make use of another clinic or physician, the FHT has their Access Bonus deducted. Given that many students frequently move between their hometown and university, it is unrealistic to expect that they would be able to exclusively use a single clinic for their entire healthcare needs. It also creates an administrative burden for campuses to enrol and unenrol a constantly changing student population. This issue could be addressed by exempting students from the deductions of the Access Bonus that FHT physicians get for exclusive enrolment or by not actively enrolling students but instead compensating campus FHTs through an audited estimate of the fraction of students that use the clinic.

With some minor adjustments, students believe that the FHT model could greatly improve the quality of care on Ontario campuses. It’s an initiative that would likely result in long-term savings for the Province by improving primary and preventive care for young Ontarians, and would be a critical improvement sorely needed for students often facing serious mental and physical health issues.

-Laura Pin
Research Analyst

March 2011: OUSA holds its Spring General Assembly at Queen’s University in Kingston Ontario. Following critics Jim Wilson, PC MPP, and Rosario Marchese, NDP MPP at OUSA’s Fall General Assembly, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, John Milloy was invited to speak at the Spring General Assembly. Click on the image to watch the highlights of his address on YouTube.

Hon. John Milloy Addresses OUSA's Spring GA

Transition Conference 2011

All week, 39 students and staff from across OUSA’s member associations in Ontario are in Toronto for its annual Transition Conference. Delegates have been going through rigorous training sessions of presentations and active learning techniques in order to grasp OUSA’s policies, history, goals, and challenges.

Delegates include our outgoing Steering Committee, our incoming Steering Committee, Student Association Presidents, research and policy staff of student unions, observer school executives, and OUSA home office.

All delegates have been challenged to exchange ideas, best practices, and lessons learned from the past year. In particular, students have been challenged to discuss OUSA’s role in the upcoming Ontario Provincial Election, and how we as a coalition of students can encourage young people to vote, and how to ensure that higher education remains a priority and part of the discussion in the election narrative. They’ve also heard from alumni and stakeholders on ways to work together and move higher education in Ontario together.

At the end of this conference, the newly elected Steering Committee will elect its new Executive -President, VP Administration, and VP Finance – which OUSA will announce on Monday. It is an exciting time of renewal and opportunity for the organization, but it could not be successful without the commitment of its student leaders.

I’d like to thank the outgoing Steering Committee for all of their hard work and dedication this past year, and wish them all the success in their future endeavors. OUSA is the organization it is today due to the hard work of its dedicated student leaders.

-Alvin Tedjo
Director of Communications

With the 2010-2011 school year coming to an end and students transitioning into their summer, OUSA will also enter into a period of transition. April and May mark my last months as President and this will be my last message. I wish to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to OUSA in the past year and made it such a success!

This year OUSA has invested unbelievable energy into boosting our research analysis and government relations. Over the past year, OUSA has produced government submission after government submission including the Ontario Online Institute, Going Global and Breaking Barriers. This hard work and thoughtful analysis has translated into an incredibly successful year by majorly contributing to the dialogue within the post-secondary education sector in Ontario.

Some of this year’s most notable efforts include the value we have placed on working cohesively within the higher education sector. Over the past year, OUSA has aimed to reach out to new partners within the sector and strengthen existing relationships in order to offer more educated recommendations.

This year we have seen the Ontario government prioritize increasing access to our universities and colleges, with the announcement of fully funding 60,000 new spaces over the next five years. In the future, OUSA hopes to build upon our past efforts to contribute to the discussion of enhancing the accessibility for underrepresented students and groups in our Province.

OUSA’s accomplishments this year must be credited to the dynamic team of leaders at OUSA in the 2010-2011 academic year. Our Steering Committee, Home Office staff, and all of our partners and students contributed a great deal of energy and leadership to the Alliance; our successes are a testament to their commitment.

To my fellow members and Vice-Presidents on the Steering Committee, thank you for your unbounded dedication to OUSA and the students of Ontario. The time and effort spent on policy development and your thoughtful direction of our organization was inspiring. It has been a pleasure to serve with you as advocates and leaders for the students we represent.

To the talented Home Office staff, your unwavering commitment to the organization and mandate of OUSA has set an unbelievable standard. The excellent quality of work that you all do every day drives the success of our policy and research, communications and government relations and greatly contributes to the strength of the Alliance.

Special thanks and best wishes to Alexi White as he moves onto new horizons after serving as Executive Director for two years. Thank you so much to the rest of Home Office and best wishes to everyone in the coming year.

To our partners in government and throughout the sector, thank you for your unrelenting commitment to building a stronger system for Ontario. Your dedication to this goal does not go unnoticed by the students this system serves.

In closing, I want to express my sincere appreciation to all the student leaders of OUSA. Your devotion to best representing your students will continue to effect positive change within our system long after this year. It has been an honour and privilege to serve as your President this past year and together we have done our part to ensure the strength of this Alliance into the years ahead. Undoubtedly, OUSA will continue to think critically, plan strategically, and develop meaningful solutions to strive for a brighter future for higher education in Ontario and offer a system that our student and citizens deserve.

-Meaghan Coker

Hey everyone!

This is Kristen and Chris, the new OUSA research interns. We’ve been hired for the summer to assist the research team on OUSA’s policy and research objectives for the coming year.  The OUSA General Assembly has tasked us with writing policy papers on tuition, accountability, and system growth. We are eager to get started on these research topics, working with steering committee members to ensure that the unique student perspective is represented in our work.

This is a very exciting time for our organization. As Ontario heads to the polls this fall, OUSA is well positioned to make sure the student voice is heard in the discussion surrounding post-secondary education. We will both be working with steering committee members and home office staff over the course of the summer to ensure that Ontarians prioritize post-secondary education as they mark their ballots on October 6^th.

We will also be working to enact the general assembly’s mandate to engage in thorough consultation on our recently passed Aboriginal students paper (available on the policy section of the website). We are excited to take our recommendations on the Aboriginal bursary, funding for Aboriginal student centres, institutional transformation, and other areas to Aboriginal students and communities in order to make sure that our advocacy is truly representative of the issues that affect these students daily.

You’ll be hearing more from us individually as the summer progresses and as we continue to make progress on research topics that are important to post-secondary students and stakeholders. We are eager to get working and look forward to sharing our findings!

-Kristen Holman – kristen@ousa.ca
-Chris Rudnicki – chris.rudnicki@ousa.ca

Bill 183, Ombudsman Statute Law Amendment Act (Designated Public Bodies), 2011, will receive Second Reading this afternoon in the Ontario Legislature. The Private Members’ Bill, introduced by MPP Rosario Marchese, extends power to the Ombudsman of Ontario to investigate universities, hospitals, long-term care homes, school boards, children’s aid societies, retirement homes and the office of the Independent Police Review Director.

OUSA recently sent a letter to Mr. Marchese that indicated students’ support for this initiative. The letter can be found below:

To Whom It May Concern:

The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) wishes to express its support for Bill 183, An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act and the Police Services Act with respect to investigating designated public bodies, which would grant the Ombudsman of Ontario jurisdiction over universities and other entities in the broader public sector. Ensuring the accountability of our universities is of great importance to students, and OUSA believes that this Act would do much to strengthen this accountability.

As an organization involved directly with undergraduate students, OUSA hears a considerable range of concerns, many of which could be more successfully dealt with if the assistance of the Ontario Ombudsman was available. Only 12 of 20 publicly funded Ontario universities have their own ombudsperson, and their purview is generally limited. Moreover, for those institutions that do have such a position, the availability of a fully external ombudsperson would better ensure impartiality in the eyes of students. The Ontario Ombudsman received 113 complaints and inquiries regarding universities between 2007 and 2010, indicating that there already exists a significant demand for greater involvement in the sector. While students firmly support academic freedom and institutional autonomy, we do not believe ombudsman oversight is incompatible with these principles.

Given the clear benefits of extending the Ontario Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, students welcome Bill 183 and encourage all Members of Provincial Parliament to support its swift adoption.

Sincerely,

Meaghan Coker, President
Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance