OUSA

Chris Martin Educated Solutions article

Republished from Educated Solutions: The Affordability Issue (Issue 8, November 2011)

By Chris Martin, Director of Research, Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance

For many years now, tuition has taken centre stage in the ongoing debate surrounding student fees. This is understandable; the price tag associated with tuition is the most obvious personal expense incurred by attending post-secondary education. Indeed, one of the few things that every Ontario citizen knows about post-secondary education is that tuition is expensive. However, ancillary fees are a far less obvious expense and much less discussed outside of the university community itself. Even the names associated with these fees paints a picture of relative unimportance; they’re “incidental,” “ancillary” or “miscellaneous.”

Students find this to be an unfortunate reality, since ancillary fees are growing steadily both in terms of cost to students and in their importance to university finance. These fees pay for a wide variety of non-academic services, including health insurance plans, public transit, athletic centres, physical and mental health services, student governments, food banks, campus construction projects and more. After accounting for inflation, ancillary fees per student have grown by six times since 1980, doubling the rate of growth in tuition fees over the same period. This has obviously meant that students are paying more ancillary fees than they ever have before. According to Statistics Canada, Ontario has the second highest average ancillary fees in the country, making our province the most expensive in Canada in which to attend university by nearly $1,000.

Ancillary fee revenue for each full-time equivalent student has increased from approximately $136 in 1979-80 to over $966 in 2009-10, accounting for more than one-seventh of the average student’s bill. In terms of importance to the overall university system, ancillary fee revenue has grown on average from less than one per cent of the operating budget to over six per cent during the same time period. In 2011-12, combined ancillary fee and tuition revenue pushed the overall student contribution to Ontario university operating budgets to 47.96 per cent, just below the government’s contribution of 48 per cent. This means that for the first time, Ontario students are now contributing just as much to the operating costs of universities as the provincial government. Clearly, ancillary fees have increased past the point of being “incidental” or “miscellaneous.” Rather, they are an important and growing player in both the affordability and funding of the university system.

There are many different types of ancillary fees charged by universities, which can be broken down into tuition-related compulsory fees, non-tuition related compulsory fees and non-compulsory user fees.

Non-tuition related compulsory ancillary fees in Ontario are controlled by student governments and can only be introduced or increased with their consent. These fees carry particular importance to students, largely due to the fact that they pay for important student support services often in lieu of declining or stagnant support from institutional operating budgets. It is important to note that this underinvestment has not been due to a lack of recognition of the importance of student support services, but rather the cost pressures forcing institutional revenue to focus on core university functions such as teaching and research. For example, at the University of Waterloo, the proportion of student service costs borne by students increased from 92 per cent to 98 per cent between 2004-05 and 2010-11. Given non-tuition related compulsory fees are of growing importance to mental health and counselling services, academic skills clinics and more, students are particularly concerned over their future. While students are facing higher fees than ever before, student service fees will continue to rise without increased operating support for student services from either universities or the government.

Furthermore, infrastructure funding from the government is typically only granted for academic or administrative purposes, leaving student or athletic facilities without support. As a result, students at sixteen of Ontario’s 20 universities are currently paying compulsory fees at an average of $112 to support student and athletic capital projects. Students at Nipissing University alone pay over $470 annually. In 2009, the final report of the Ontario government’s Long-Term Capital Planning Project made a recommendation that “funding should be extended to traditional ‘ancillary’ projects which demonstrate significant contribution to student development.” Just this year, the government announced $7.9 million dollars in funding for an athletic complex at St. Clair College. Students hope that this signals a change in direction for a government policy that has required them to largely foot the bill for facilities that benefit the entire community.

Tuition-related fees have been disallowed in Ontario since 1987, effectively drawing a line between what revenue could be considered tuition and what could be considered ancillary. These rules have mostly kept in check fees for items traditionally paid for by universities – namely academic instruction, evaluation and support. Unfortunately, instances of students being charged tuition-related compulsory fees for online tests and assignments have popped up at universities across Ontario. In response, the government sent a memo in 2011 clarifying that fees for evaluation were considered tuition-related, and not allowable under current regulations. While students are not against the proliferation of innovative online products, this letter was an important step in ensuring that this transition respects the long-standing relationship of institutions paying for evaluation. These fees, however, fly under the radar of administrators, and there remains pressure from some faculty members and textbook publishers to continue to charge for such products.

Non-compulsory ancillary fees typically come in the form of user fees students pay in order to access certain university goods and services. If a student needs to replace a lost student card, print a transcript or a second copy of a degree, they will usually end up paying some kind of user fee in order to recover the cost of the good or service. In many cases, user fees are justifiable on a cost-recovery basis. As such, no serious effort has been made to regulate them in the same way that compulsory fees are regulated.

This lack of regulation is certainly understandable in a context where user fees are charged simply for goods and services a student could avoid. Unfortunately, this scenario is not always the case. For example, Ontario students now pay graduation fees at 10 of Ontario’s 20 universities. These fees are charged at the time a student applies to graduate and currently average approximately $35, and are charged regardless of whether a student plans to attend the convocation ceremony or not. Students in particular question the classification of graduation fees as non-compulsory user fees, given that graduation is an expectation of those who have finished their degree requirements. Another example is the growing use of deferral fees for students who cannot afford to pay their full fees in September or have yet to receive their student loans.

Clearly, ancillary fees are growing in importance for both Ontario universities and students. The time has come for renewed public effort to understand and control the quickly changing landscape of ancillary fees in Ontario. The government originally implemented these regulations to draw a clear distinction between tuition fees and ancillary fees. Moving forward, the government, universities and students must work together to ensure that the spirit of this distinction is maintained for future generations to come.

-

Chris Martin is currently the Director of Research at OUSA, and has been an active volunteer of the organization for nearly his entire university education. Chris joined OUSA after completing his degree in Political Science at McMaster University, where he also worked extensively with the student union.

Students were encouraged by the Ontario government’s renewed commitments to post-secondary education in the new Speech from the Throne delivered yesterday by the Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The speech outlined the government’s plans to reduce overall spending growth, while introducing several important initiatives for students.

Chief among them is the implementation of a new tuition grant, which will be the single largest new expenditure for the government, costing approximately $420 million. Advocating for more grants to reduce low- and middle-income students’ up-front costs has been a long-time priority for OUSA, and we are pleased to see that this priority has been recognized, resulting in a significant grant program being rolled out for January. We are currently in discussions with government to ensure that the grant’s eligibility rules and application processes are accessible and inclusive.

There was an additional commitment to proceed with site selection for three new undergraduate campuses. We have indicated our concerns in the past with the lack of support and course offerings available to students at new satellite campuses. We remain hopeful that the government’s new satellite campus policy moving forward will ensure a high-quality learning environment for all students.

As part of the growth strategy, the Speech confirmed the government’s plans to fund 60,000 new spaces at colleges and universities. While this will ensure that our institutions continue to receive public funding for new students, we are cautious that per-student funding will likely remain frozen for new and current spaces. Despite these difficult times, students believe it is only prudent for the public to share in funding reasonable inflationary costs at universities, in the same way it does for our schools and hospitals. Students should not be the only ones relied on to increase their support of universities and colleges through increased fees – a continuation of increases well above the rate of inflation will quickly erode value of the new tuition grant.

Finally, the Ontario government acknowledged their responsibility in improving education supports for Aboriginal students. OUSA has just recently updated its policy on supporting Aboriginal students after a series of consultations with the Aboriginal communities present on our campuses and beyond. We look forward to continuing to work with the government to close the participation gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.

With the Legislature’s first Question Period behind us and the Minister of Finance’s economic update coming this afternoon, the government is back in full swing. Post-secondary education will obviously be an important piece of the new government’s agenda. We will meet with Members of Provincial Parliament from all parties in the coming weeks to lay out our proposed next steps and continue to work for a more accessible, affordable, accountable and high quality post-secondary education system in Ontario.

-Sam Andrey
OUSA Executive Director

Joseph Berger Educated Solutions article

Republished from Educated Solutions: The Affordability Issue (Issue 8, November 2011)

By Joseph Berger, Director of Business Development and Communications, Higher Education Strategy Associates

What should we conclude about a country where tuition increases at a faster pace than student debt? Assuming – and this is a mild assumption – that student loan recipients tend to skew more toward the lower ends of the income spectrum, if their debt rises slower than the general cost of education, we might just have a progressive system of higher education.

The most recent figures on university student debt in Canada date to 2009, when the Canadian University Survey Consortium published its triennial survey of graduating students. As my then colleagues and I reported in the fourth edition of The Price of Knowledge, debt had increased at a relatively small pace between 2000 and 2009. After accounting for inflation, undergraduate debt had increased from just under $25,000 in 2000 to just under $27,000 in 2009 – a 9% increase. No small amount to be sure, but keep in mind that tuition grew at a faster pace, by 14%, according to Statistics Canada. Moreover, the proportion of undergraduates reporting debt from any source (government student loans are most common, followed by private loans from banks, family members and friends) increased by a mere two percentage points, from 56% to 58%.

These figures may not necessarily jive with the characterization of student debt in Canada. “Everybody knows” that debt loads are spiralling out of control, that the incidence of debt is growing at an alarming rate and that student debt loads are unsustainable. On the first two accounts, it would be more accurate to say the mash-up of loan remission programs, upfront grants and tax credits has let us hold the line, more or less, on student debt. Our system might not be ideal, but at least it’s stable.

As for the manageability of debt loads, we’ve never really had a strong measure of the impact of student debt on a graduate’s financial decisions. It’s easy to imagine a graduate deferring the purchase of a home or a car, or marriage and child-rearing, until they’ve got a handle on their debt payments. There’s a strong case to be made that graduates with substantial debt loads might stunt their burgeoning careers by settling for an OK job that will pay right now instead of a better job that might be further on the horizon. Yet the programs in place during the 2000s – loans, grants and tax credits provided by the federal and provincial governments and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, not to mention institutional financial aid – all helped to keep debt from growing at a rate that only exceeded inflation somewhat. Thank heavens for small graces, right? It hasn’t hurt, either, that low interest rates have kept payments relatively low, which might explain why one-third of Ontarians who graduated with debt in 2005 had repaid it completely within two years.

So is higher education in Ontario affordable? Well, that depends on who were talking about: folks at the top of income heap, or those at the bottom. Perhaps the more compelling question is how much debt can students reasonably afford to take on in pursuit of post-secondary education? More to the point, are particular individuals averse to debt, and if so, what are the consequences of a post-secondary system built largely on the premise that the long-term gain exceeds short-term pain?

In a neat little paper1 for the College Board, Carleton’s Saul Schwartz and Skidmore College’s Sandy Baum, who combined have studied the issue of student debt from every conceivable angle, attempt to define benchmarks for student debt affordability (the pair worked on a Canadian version reaching similar conclusions). Interestingly, they conclude that what really matters isn’t the debt load, per se, but the debt-service ratio, i.e., the proportion of income a graduate must devote to student loan repayment. They argue for the establishment of a sliding scale, ranging from no payments for those earning $10,000 or less to a maximum of 18% of discretionary income (i.e., that which exceeds 150% of the poverty line) for those earning $150,000. Sound familiar? That’s because it served as the rationale for the parameters of the Repayment Assistance Plan jointly administered by the Governments of Canada and Ontario, which caps maximum payments at 20% of income, and allows students to discharge outstanding debt after 15 years of repayment (additional support is available for those with permanent disabilities).

Still, the mere prospect of student debt might discourage potential students from pursuing post-secondary education, particularly those from families with low incomes or no experience with post-secondary education. Policymakers typically point to debt aversion as a significant barrier to higher education, and have in recent years introduced grant programs specifically intended to make higher education cheaper for these students. Combined, the access grants that emerged in the middle of the last decade (and have evolved into other things, for the most part) de facto eliminated tuition for most low-income students, yet only half of all low-income students bothered to apply for financial aid. Maybe we need to find a better way to eliminate tuition. New papers from HEQCO2 and the World Bank3 shed a little empirical light on our collective assumptions about poverty and student debt aversion. They conclude that debt aversion exists, but it’s minimal, and is often mitigated by increased work hours or a more frugal lifestyle. Most of the time, the prospect of debt itself isn’t enough to keep a young person from finding a way to study.

In short, we may be approaching the limits of what student aid can do for the question of access. Coming off of a decade where student aid programs – as byzantine as they may be, as an OUSA research paper famously put it – kept debt increases below the rise in tuition, Ontario students who do struggle after graduation have access to comprehensive repayment assistance. While student aid is far from optimal (one can only rant about the proliferation of do-nothing tax credits for so long), it’s still pretty good – and it will never be able to address the problems we increasingly identify as crucial to the development of a more accessible system of higher education: the academic, informational, cultural, motivational and aspirational barriers to higher education. So is higher education affordable? Well, that’s the wrong question. Here’s a better one: if higher education is affordable, where do we turn our attention next?

-

Joseph Berger is the Director of Business Development and Communications at Higher Education Strategy Associates. Prior to this, he served as a senior planning analyst at McGill University. He spent several years at the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation as both a policy and research officer and a communications officer. At the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, Joseph authored and co-authored a number of publications, notably two editions of the organization’s flagship publication, The Price of Knowledge. Joseph pursued studies at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels in journalism and public policy and administration at Concordia University in Montreal.

-

1. Baum, S. and Schwartz, S. (2006). How Much Debt Is Too Much? Defining Benchmarks for Manageable Student Debt. New York: The College Board. http://bit.ly/shMP5f

2. Palameta, B. & Voyer, J.P. (2010). Willingness to pay for Post-secondary Education Among Under-represented Groups – Report. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://bit.ly/tA5LzB

3. Caetano, G., Patrinos, H. & Palacios, M. (2011). Measuring Aversion to Debt An Experiment among Student Loan Candidates. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5737. http://bit.ly/vWCV5X

Premier Dalton McGuinty's Educated Solutions foreword

Republished from Educated Solutions: The Affordability Issue (Issue 8, November 2011)

By Premier Dalton McGuinty

Our world has changed. Economic strength isn’t just about brawn anymore — it’s about brains.  Ours is a knowledge economy — and succeeding in that economy means we need to make changes.

For example, we know that 70 per cent of all new jobs will need workers who have post-secondary credentials.

That’s why the demand for college and university continues to grow.

Economists know that a strong post-secondary system is the key to a strong economy.  And young people know that a post-secondary education is their best ticket for a higher quality of life and better job.

As many families in Ontario have experienced, education is the greatest social and economic equalizer. Spending on education is one of the most important investments a government makes — because it’s focused on creating a bright future for Ontarians and their children and grandchildren.

That’s why, as Premier, I’ve made education my personal priority.

And through our investments in education, we’re helping to ensure that all of our young people can achieve their potential and build their future. Simply put: young Ontarians are rising to the occasion.

In 2003 only 68 per cent of our high school students were graduating. Today that number is 81 per cent. In the last decade, young Ontarians entered post-secondary institutions at twice the rate of their peers across the country. We’re on our way to achieving among the highest post-secondary attainment rates and graduation rates in the world.

But there is still more to do.  We need to make sure that every qualified young person gets the skills and education they need to succeed.

In the recent election we committed to creating 60,000 new post-secondary spaces on top of the 120,000 college and university spaces we’ve already added. And we’ll build three new undergraduate campuses to deliver the highest quality undergraduate experience for students.

Most importantly, we’re creating a new tuition grant that will reduce average undergraduate tuition for college and university by 30 per cent — because money shouldn’t be an obstacle to pursuing higher education.

Through our investments in education — and the hard work of young Ontarians — we’re making progress in post-secondary education. That’s important to me.  Young people in post-secondary today are the doctors, carpenters, teachers, nurses and builders of tomorrow.  And, so, when you succeed, we succeed.

All of us.  Together.

Please accept my very best wishes for what I hope will be a wonderful, challenging and fulfilling year.

-Dalton McGuinty

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty is the 24th Premier of Ontario, and MPP for Ottawa South. He was first elected in 1990, and was elected premier in 2003. He is currently serving his third consecutive term as Premier.

NEW POLICY

It’s hard to believe that the 2011-12 year is more than halfway over. Despite the added responsibilities of maintaining a public profile during the General Election and running a province-wide survey project, OUSA has been maintaining our full roster of policy and research activities. Last spring, the General Assembly tasked our Steering Committee with the development of three policies and consulting on a fourth. These policies form the core of the organization and are what we lobby for and communicate on a day-to-day basis.

I’m pleased to announce that after months of hard work, vigorous debate and consultation with students and partners, all the policy papers have been passed by the General Assembly. All four new or amended policies are currently accessible in our policy paper library here.

Aboriginal Students: Though the Aboriginal Students policy was passed at the Spring 2011 General Assembly, it was with the stipulation that OUSA further consult with the Aboriginal community on the recommendations of the paper, bringing back the results of the consultations to the next meeting. Since spring, Laura Pin has been leading this project, consulting with Aboriginal students, support service staff and community groups at McMaster, Waterloo, Windsor, Queen’s, Western and Brock. These consultations have been included as language amendments and new recommendations in the paper. These include new language on the underrepresentation of Métis perspectives in classrooms, a new concern on the shortage of Aboriginal instructors, a corresponding recommendation on the hiring of Aboriginal instructors, a concern and recommendation on grant eligibility for Aboriginal students, and new language supporting anti-racist Aboriginal cultural training for administrators, faculty and staff.

Accountability: The new accountability policy represents a student vision of how public universities in Ontario should be held accountable to stated goals and objectives, providing recommendations on university boards of governors, Multi-Year Accountability Agreements, report-backs for funding envelopes and quality assurance processes.

System Growth: The System Growth paper is a broad-based look at the future structure and function of Ontario’s post- secondary system going forward. Our positions are built with recognition of expected growth, and aim to identify public policy options that will not only sustain but also strengthen the overall health of the post-secondary education system in Ontario in this context of enrolment growth. At the heart of our paper is a vision for a public system of post-secondary education, which prioritizes the accessibility, affordability and quality of education. Resource allocation, student experience, government contributions, and desire for a clear direction forward for the entire Ontario system are themes embedded in our policy positions.

Tuition: The tuition paper supports two key objectives; first, it provides principled recommendations on how much tuition should be; second, it provides recommendations on the processes by which tuition is charged, including payment deadlines and flat-fee payment models. While nothing in this paper departs drastically from our previous positions on tuition, we attempt to ground the tuition discussion in student affordability while expanding our payment processes recommendations to encompass new topics, including payment deadlines and tuition deferral fees.

RESEARCH LIBRARY

Also, I’m pleased to announce that that our research library has been updated with all the resources we’ve use in Breaking Barriers, Rising Costs and in our other policy papers. It also now has two new sections with links to the Council of Ontario Universities’ Common University Data Ontario database as well as the two public datasets for university financial information.

Additionally, the research library is new home of our Rising Costs report as well as the full breakdown of the results from the public opinion polling OUSA commissioned during the general election, in partnership with the College Student Alliance and Abacus Data Inc.

You can access the research library here.

While this may not seem like the most exciting update in the history of OUSA, I hope that this page will prove a useful starting point for students interested in knowing more about the forces shaping their experience in higher education. Armed with the plentitude of research available on post-secondary education world-wide, articulating a clear case for change on the campus-level becomes a much more accessible task.

MINUTES

We have also completed updating and formatting the minutes from the Fall 2011 OUSA General Assembly. To read up on the exciting debate and amendments proposed to our policy papers, take a look here.

-Chris Martin
OUSA Director of Research

Harvey Weingarten Educated Solutions article

Republished from Educated Solutions: The Affordability Issue (Issue 8, November 2011)

By Dr. Harvey P. Weingarten, President, Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO)

By a number of metrics, the Ontario university system appears affordable. Forty-seven per cent of university students graduate with no debt. The average debt for those owing money, about $25,000, appears manageable for many as the loan default rate of Ontario university graduates is at a historic low.  While absolute tuition levels in Ontario universities have risen sharply — a 19 per cent increase from 2006-07 to 2010-11 — tax credits, scholarships, bursaries and enhanced student assistance programs have mitigated the net effect of these tuition increases. In fact, once all of these are taken into account, it may be that very few students pay the full “sticker” price of tuition.  Inflation has blunted the real magnitude of these absolute tuition increases even further.

While tuition levels in Ontario are among the highest in Canada, they are significantly lower than what students pay to attend comparable public universities in other countries. The most striking example is provided by the University of Toronto, an institution ranked internationally as among the best public universities in the world. Students entering the U of T in arts and sciences baccalaureate programs this year will pay $5,450 in tuition. Tuition for in-state students at public institutions in the United States with comparable or lesser international reputations are $13,000 at the University of California, $14,000 at the University of Michigan, $11,600 at the University of Virginia and even $10,000 in resource-rich University of Texas (out-of-state students pay more and a strategy being used by these public universities to maximize revenue is to increase their take of out-of-state students, a strategy many would not like to see adopted in Ontario).

Perhaps most significantly and tellingly, in spite of the tuition levels charged in Ontario, this province has among the highest university participation rates in Canada and has evidenced the largest increase in university enrolments compared to all other provinces over the last eight years or so.  Finally, in terms of affordability, economic and labour outcome analyses demonstrate consistently that money spent attaining a post-secondary credential is one of the best financial investments anyone will ever make, even accounting for lost wages during the time spent achieving a degree.

In spite of the generally positive assessment presented above, there are some outstanding affordability challenges and the most prominent is this: certain groups of potential students ––those who are low-income, Aboriginals, living in rural areas, from families with no post-secondary experience — are not adequately or equitably participating in universities. Financial issues contribute to their under-representation. We thought this problem was easy to solve – all that was needed was to offer more financial aid. The evidence suggests, though, that simply putting more money on the table has not closed the participation gap between under-represented and traditional university attendees. In fact, some HEQCO research reveals that fully half of students eligible for financial assistance (some of which would be non-repayable grants) do not seek the funds available.

There are a host of attitudinal, cultural and social barriers that discourage some students from seeking financial aid and thereby pursuing an affordable university education. To achieve the goal of increasing the number of students from currently under-represented groups in our universities will require a set of changes to the current student assistance system, some directly financial others procedural. A recent paper by OUSA, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Equal Access to Higher Education does a very good job of crystallizing these issues and offering a comprehensive solution, an important element of which is to reform the ways we administer student financial aid. To highlight the centrality of this continuing challenge, HEQCO is sponsoring a conference in November 2011, Fear of Finance: Financial Literacy and Planning for Post-Secondary Education, that will explore innovative and effective ways to overcome the barriers some students experience in their effort to secure the financial means to attain a post-secondary credential.

A complete discussion of affordability also recognizes that some of the decisions affecting affordability, particularly the setting of tuition, have affected and influenced the relationship between students and their universities.

First, universities have become increasingly reliant on tuition fees to support their institutions.  In 1990, tuition represented 19 per cent of the operating revenue of Ontario universities; by 2008, that had increased to 37 per cent. As tuition contributes proportionally more to the university’s bottom line, it is reasonable that students will ask more pointed questions about what they getting for their money and seek a greater say in how their tuition dollars are spent. Students have noted that incremental university revenues have gone preferentially to cost drivers, such as increased employee wages and benefits, which have not led necessarily to a higher quality or a better student experience. Students may well seek a larger say in how their increased tuition dollars are being used to improve the quality and value of their experiences. One manifestation of this dynamic will be to focus students (and governments) on what students actually know, understand and can do upon completion of a particular program of study. This issue, the challenge of identifying and measuring learning outcomes, is a significant area of research at HEQCO.

Second, students are aware that a primary way governments have compensated universities for the loss of public funding has been to allow tuition fees to rise at a rate faster than inflation. Students are also keenly observing the dramatic changes in tuition policy in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. Given Ontario’s financial situation, students wonder what the provincial government will decide about future tuition levels.  This concern amplifies the acuity and angst of tuition discussions and decisions and the political activity around them. All of this is quite appropriate given the centrality of affordability as a cornerstone of a successful public higher education system. ν

-

Harvey P. Weingarten is President and CEO of the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). He previously spent ten years as President of the University of Calgary. Dr. Weingarten taught at McMaster University as a Professor of Psychology, also serving as Dean of Science and Provost. He holds a Bachelor of Science from McGill University, and a Master of Science, Master of Philosophy and Doctorate of Philosophy from Yale University.

On Tuesday morning, Sam Andrey and I had the opportunity to attend the launch of Prospects for Ontario’s Prosperity, the 10^th annual report of the Task Force for Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress. This was an exciting occasion, as the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance has been a long-time supporter of the Task Force’s call to increase and prioritize funding for post-secondary education. The Task Force rightly correlates more education with higher lifetime earnings, lower unemployment and growth in GDP per-capita. Additionally, the report acknowledges that Ontario has made significant strides in post-secondary attainment over the last ten years, producing now slightly more Bachelor’s degrees per capita than the United States.

Additionally, while the report points to Bachelor’s attainment as a success, it is also pointed out that Ontario lags behind peer jurisdictions in the number of Master’s, PhD and undergraduate business degrees granted. In fact, though Ontario leads in granting science and engineering degrees, the Province fall behind on business degrees. The report explains this as one of the reasons Ontario may be falling behind OECD peer jurisdictions in turning our R&D advantage into an economic advantage. The report recommends increasing the number of graduate level and business degrees awarded as a way to facilitate future prosperity.

Even as a true believer in the economic returns of higher education, this narrative gives me pause. To be clear, in no way do I dispute the fact that correlation between greater levels of education and economic performance exists. It is also true that there is growing demand for highly educated workers from our employers, and that meeting that demand is a good and vital thing for our businesses and our people. However, suggesting a causal relationship is a completely different matter altogether; one that I believe no conclusive evidence completely supports or debunks. The recommendation to increase the number of graduate degrees per capita carries the implicit assumption that more graduate education itself causes innovation and prosperity. When one considers the educational backgrounds of many of the great innovators of the twentieth century however, not all came from highly educated backgrounds. The founders of Microsoft, Apple and Research in Motion all lacked graduate-level education, for instance.

Moreover, evidence from jurisdictions other than Canada paint an inconclusive picture. For instance, one study indicates that Cuba expanded the proportion of the labour force with tertiary education by six times between the 1960s and 1980s, with total educational attainment increasing from approximately 3 per cent to over 23 per cent per cent. Despite this massive increase in educational attainment however, wages across all income levels remained relatively consistent. Across all sectors, the study estimated that education had only a marginal impact on economic growth. Impacts were particularly low in sectors where productivity takes on a greater importance.

While I am not suggesting that Cuba in the late 20^th century is comparable to Ontario in the 21^st, it is an example that the statement “greater attainment rates drives greater prosperity” is not always a conclusive truth. It can be the case, but is at the very least dependent on many other economic and social factors.

I am relatively sure however, that any potential relationship between these two expensive and vital public policy objectives is heavily dependent on what actually happens at college and university. In other words, if economic progress is to be dependent on higher education, it would seem to me that the content and quality of this education should matter a great deal. To me, it seems probable that high quality education, based on both the needs of the labour market and creation of measurable learning outcomes, would have a real impact on the prosperity of our Province.

In sum, I applaud the tenth annual report of the Task Force for its recommendations to turn Ontario into a leading centre for talent and skills, invest in post-secondary education, and expand financial aid and participation of under-represented groups. Expanding access and attainment of post-secondary education is something supported by students and Ontarians alike. I would just suggest though that the quality of degrees must be just as important as the number awarded for a meaningful impact on prosperity to be truly felt.

-Chris Martin
OUSA Director of Research

David Coletto Educated Solutions article

Republished from Educated Solutions: The Affordability Issue (Issue 8, November 2011)

By David Coletto, Ph.D CEO, Abacus Data Inc.

For the complete results of OUSA’s recent public opinion polling with Abacus Data, click here.

-

The recent provincial election campaign in Ontario was dominated by debates over taxes, the economy, and who was best to lead Ontario through what appears to be some uncertain economic times. We heard little about some of the other priorities Ontarians care about: health care and education.

In early September, OUSA and the College Student Alliance commissioned Abacus Data to conduct a public opinion survey of Ontarians over the age of 18 to gauge the public’s attitudes towards post-secondary education. An election is a great time to survey the public because it is the one time when it is most engaged and most likely to be thinking about policy issues. With an election underway and school back in session, it was an excellent time to find out where the public is when it comes to post-secondary education.

Here are some of the key findings from the survey.

Most Ontarians believed that post-secondary education was very important to the province’s quality of life and economic prosperity over the next 20 years.

There was little disagreement among the public when it came to higher education’s role in building a better province in the future. Over six in ten respondents (65%) said that post-secondary was very important to the quality of life and economic prosperity of Ontario over the next 20 years while another 26% believed post-secondary was somewhat important to achieving that outcome. This opinion held regardless of one’s gender, age, income, or education. The link between future prosperity and higher education is a consensus opinion.

When asked whether post-secondary education was more important or less important to the province’s future than either hydro rates or health care, only a small minority considered it to be less important. A full two-thirds of Ontarians (67%) believed that post-secondary education was either more important than or just as important as “hydro rates” to the province’s future prosperity while a majority (62%) believed PSE was either more important than or just as important as “the quality of the health care system” to Ontario’s future.

Thus, our poll indicated that public likely does not separate higher education from other priorities such as health care or hydro rates but sees it as an integral part of what will build a better province in the future.

Ontarians also recognize the impact of tuition fees on access, the rise of student debt loads, and the need to spend more higher education.

Respondents were shown a number of statements related to post-secondary education and asked whether they agreed or disagreed with them. Overall, a large majority of Ontarians believed that students in Ontario have to borrow too much money to pay for their education (74% agreed) and that the cost of tuition fees in Ontario prevents students who are qualified and motivated to go to post-secondary education from going (68% agreed).

Moreover, when asked whether they would be willing to pay more in taxes if they money was used to reduce tuition fees and improve student aid, 54% agreed while only 30% disagreed. Ontarians not only believe that more should be done to reduce barriers to higher education and student debt loads, but a majority are willing to pay more taxes to see it happen.

What is more noteworthy is the fact that these opinions are relatively consistent across socio-economic and regional subgroups. Although younger and lower income respondents are more likely to agree with the statements, support for reduced tuition fees was high even among those with higher household incomes.

Ontarians with children at home are worried about paying for post-secondary education.

The broad support for eliminating barriers to access, reducing student debt loads, and reducing tuition fees is not surprising when you consider that 73% of Ontarians with children under 18 at home say they are either very or somewhat worried about their ability to help pay for their children’s post-secondary education. Only 5% say they are not at all worried.

The angst is not isolated amongst low or middle income Ontarians. Even among those with children under 18 whose household was higher than $75,000 per year, a large majority told us that they were either very or somewhat worried. It seems that economic uncertainty plus the rising cost of education has caused most Ontario families to worry about how they will help pay for the cost of their children’s education.

Consensus on post-secondary education: it must be a priority.

The survey research conducted by OUSA and the CSA clearly demonstrates a consensus among Ontarians about the importance of post-secondary education, not only to students in the system now and those entering in the future, but to the future prosperity and quality of life of all Ontarians. Ontarians strongly agree that student debt loads are too high and that tuition fees prevent capable students from obtaining an advanced education. For those with children under 18, many worry about their ability to help their children pay for their education

Keeping this in mind, it is no surprise that a majority of Ontarians rate post-secondary education a top priority for government spending and that over five in ten respondents would be willing to pay more taxes if it meant that tuition fees would be reduced and student aid improved.

After a divisive election campaign that left no party with an all-out majority in the legislature, one thing that unites all Ontarians is their belief that Ontario’s future is linked to the affordability and effectiveness of its post-secondary education system.

Post-secondary education is a public priority and Ontarians want it to be a priority of their government.

Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted online with 1,002 respondents from September 9 to 12, 2011. Respondents were randomly selected from a representative panel of over 150,000 Canadians. The data was statistically weighted by age, gender, education, and past provincial vote. Although there is technically no margin of error for non-probability sample-based surveys, a random survey of 1,002 respondents would have a margin or error of ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

Abacus Data was the second most accurate pollster during the 2011 Ontario provincial election. For more information about Abacus Data or its track record, visit its website at
www.abacusdata.ca.

-

Dr. David Coletto is CEO of Abacus Data. He earned a PhD in Political Science from the University of Calgary and is currently the Pollster for Sun News Network. He is an instructor at the School of Journalism and Communications at Carleton University and a Visiting Scholar at Carleton University’s Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs. You can follow him on Twitter
@ColettoD.

Ontario’s university students would again like to congratulate and welcome the Honourable Glen Murray to his new post as Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We are eagerly anticipating working with the Minister as we move forward into what is sure to be an exciting term for all in the post-secondary education sector, particularly with the implementation of the government’s new tuition grant and continued innovation and quality improvements within our universities. We wish to offer our congratulations as well to Kevin Flynn for his re-election and appointment as Parliamentary Assistant to Minister Murray at MTCU. We look forward to establishing a strong working relationship with Mr. Flynn in pursuit of continuing improvement to Ontario’s universities and colleges.

Opposition critics play a crucial role in developing a strong post-secondary education system in Ontario, and I am also happy to welcome Rob Leone, Teresa Armstrong and Alex Hill into their portfolios as Training, Colleges and Universities’ critics for the Progressive Conservative, New Democratic and Green parties respectively. Our relationships with TCU critics has always resulted in useful discussion and stronger policy alternatives for all, and we look forward to building on those results with the critics in the new minority Legislature.

I would be remiss if I did not thank outgoing Minister John Milloy and critics Jim Wilson and Rosario Marchese for their commitment to students over the past few years. All three have moved onto new exciting roles for their respective parties, but we know they will continue to be passionate advocates for students and we wish them the best of luck.

Moving forward since the election, we have been encouraged to see a renewed focus and energy around post-secondary education in Ontario. Its prominence in the campaign has led to a continued spotlight on post-secondary education as new and re-elected members of provincial parliament get down to the work of the Province. We are enthusiastic to work with all MPPs to build upon the progress that’s been made and strengthen our higher education system.

-Sean Madden
OUSA President

Katherine Marshall Educated Solutions article

Republished from Educated Solutions: The Affordability Issue (Issue 8, November 2011)

By Katherine Marshall, Chief of Content & Analysis, Labour Statistics Division, Statistics Canada

Most post-secondary students depend on earnings from a job to cover some of the cost of their education. However, youth employment can be particularly affected by economic downturns. Tuition fees have risen at a faster rate than inflation since the early 1990s.1 Recently, more high school and post-secondary students have been working during the school year and spending more time at their jobs than in the past, likely in response to increased costs.2

Using the Labour Force Survey (LFS) to examine long-term school-year employment trends among youth enrolled full-time in community college, CEGEP or university, the pattern is quite clear. Over the past 35 years, the employment rate among full-time post-secondary students increased from approximately one in four to just under one in two, with the summer employment rate remaining stable.

As youth unemployment rises during economic downturns, these important sources of student income decline, which can lead to increased borrowing. Some studies estimate an increase of 1 per cent in student unemployment leads to a 6 per cent increase in the number of students with loans. Research has shown that declining student employment rates in 1982 and 1990 were followed by large increases in the number of Canada Student Loan Program clients.3 The importance of student earnings in financing education was also evident in the Post-Secondary Education Participation Survey, which found that over one-quarter of the average student’s costs was met by employment earnings.  Students with jobs report using an average of $3,000 of employment income to help fund their studies.4

With lower levels of seniority, job permanency and job protection, young workers are often the first to be laid-off. The Canada-wide employment rate of full-time students during the academic year fell by over 3 percentage points between the fall 2008 term and the winter 2009 term. The summer of 2009 was the worst labour market for post-secondary students aged 20 to 24 since the recession years of 1982 and 1993. Between the summers of 2008 and 2009, the employment rate dropped from 70.3 per cent to 63.0 per cent, the unemployment rate increased from 9.0 per cent to 13.6 per cent, and the percentage with a full-time job dropped from 60.7 per cent to 56.6 per cent. Students in Ontario experienced the highest unemployment rate (17.1 per cent) and the second lowest employment rate (59.1 per cent) among all the provinces.

With average weekly employment hours dropping slightly, but not significantly, over the recent recession and hourly average Canada-wide wages increasing from $10.75 in 2007/2008 to $11.80 in 2009/2010, students working while in school held their ground in terms of earned income. For those students that kept their part-time jobs for the duration of the school year, average income from earnings for 2009/2010 would have been about $6,300. However, the 2.5 per cent increase in the unemployment rate suggests that, had the rate remained the same as before the downturn, an additional 30,000 students would have been employed while studying.

Employment hours increased steadily until the late 1990s and have since hovered around 16 hours per week, with nearly one in five employed students (18 per cent) working more than 20 hours per week. Working at least 20 hours per week has been shown to be an important threshold, with some studies indicating that long hours can interfere with post-secondary performance and student retention. Male students worked slightly longer hours on average per week (16.7) than female students (15.3). The employment rate during the academic year and average number of hours worked per week were slightly lower in Ontario in comparison to the national average.

Findings show that women are more likely to be employed during the school year: 52 per cent of full-time female students having a paid job during the school year compared with 41 per cent of full-time male students. Immigrant students are much less likely to work while going to school (32 per cent) compared with their Canadian-born counterparts (49 per cent). Going to school in a large urban centre, which offers more job opportunities, also increases the chances of being employed (47 per cent) compared to students living in smaller centres (39 per cent). Finally, college students are more likely to work while attending school (49 per cent) than their university counterparts (43 per cent).

Since employed male students worked about two extra hours per week, and earned more per hour than their female counterparts ($12.15 per hour in 2009/ 2010 versus $11.55), their weekly and school-year earnings were higher. Estimated school-year earnings were approximately $6,900 for men and $6,000 for women. Compared with students age 15 to 19, those aged 20 to 24 were more likely to work while going to school, work longer hours and have higher wages. The financial consequences for unemployed older students are therefore much greater than those for younger students. Furthermore, older students are also less likely to depend on their parents for financial assistance.

Of the 542,000 post-secondary students who were employed during the 2009/2010 school year, almost all (96 per cent) had a job in the service sector, compared with 78 per cent of the total non-post-secondary-student employed population. The majority of these were in retail trade, and restaurants and other eateries. Students also had a higher-than-average representation in the education services and arts, entertainment and recreation industries, where many work as research assistants and instructors in recreation and sport, respectively.

It is particularly difficult for students to be jobless during the summer due to the potential earnings loss. Students who were employed during the summer of 2009 earned $6,700 on average. The recent declines in the school-year and summer student employment rates due to the economic downturn, and subsequent increase in the unemployment rate, suggests more students would have been working at a paid job if they could have found one. However, student employment is starting to recover; students wanting work may soon have a better chance of being employed again.

Katherine Marshall has a BA in Sociology from the University of British Columbia and a MA in Women’s Studies from Carleton University. She currently works in the Labour Statistics Division at Statistics Canada and has spent many years writing for Perspectives on Labour and Income. Much of her research has focused on gender and family analysis, alternative work arrangements, and youth.

An unabridged version of this article was first published in Statistics Canada September 2010 Perspectives – Catalogue no. 75-001-X.

-

1. Ouellette, Sylvie. 2006. How Students Fund Their Post-secondary Education: Findings from the Post-secondary Education
Participation Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-595-MIE – No. 042. Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics
Research Papers. Ottawa. Statistics Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada. 39 p.

2. Usalcas, Jeannine and Geoff Bowlby. 2006. “Students in the labour market.” Education Matters. Vol. 3, no. 1. April. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-004-XIE http://bit.ly/veySsJ (accessed August 10, 2010).

3. Usher, Alex and Ryan Dunn. 2009. On the Brink: How the Recession of 2009 Will Affect Post-secondary Education. Toronto,
Ontario. Educational Policy Institute. 33 p. http://bit.ly/ukOeOQ (accessed August 10, 2010).

4. Ouellette 2006