OUSA

Hugh Mackenzie's Educated Solutions article

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

Written by Hugh Mackenzie, Principal, Hugh Mackenzie & Associates

Over the past 20 years, the cost of attending a college or university in Ontario and in most provinces in Canada has increased dramatically – more than doubling since 1993. For programs in the professions and business, the increases have been off the charts.

The results for students are crystal clear. Students in undergraduate arts and sciences programs are graduating into weak and uncertain employment markets saddled with debts that in many cases exceed the mortgages their parents took out when they bought their home. For students whose families cannot comprehend assuming massive debts before they even enter the workforce, the tuition barrier makes their post-secondary educational choices for them – they don’t attend. For those who attend, many find their education compromised by the need to work heavy hours in part-time jobs just to make ends meet.

Because the tuition increases have been most extreme in business and professional schools, so have the impacts on access and career choices. Most of the professional schools that have jacked up their tuition and other fees have dealt with the access impact by choosing not to study it. Those few studies that have been done paint a stark picture. Studies of medical students at the University of Western Ontario indicate that, since tuition increases began, the proportion of the student body from high-income families has shown a significant increase, while enrolment from lower- and middle-income families has dropped. Students from middle-income families in particular find themselves caught in a squeeze. Their families are too well-off to qualify for bursary support, but not sufficiently well-off to manage the increasing costs.

It also affects career choices. It is hard to find young lawyers who are prepared to work for the government, legal clinics or in areas of law less well-paid than corporate law. Why? Because it is hard to imagine paying off a law school sized student loan from legal clinic wages. A similar problem is affecting medical practice. Faced with crippling levels of debt on graduation, young doctors are increasingly focusing on the higher-paid specialties and shunning less well paid areas of practice like family medicine.

High tuition increasingly means that our universities are focused on serving students from high-income families and those few students from low-income families who can qualify for needs-based assistance.

It’s not fair. One of the foundations of our society is mutual sharing of responsibility among generations. Working Canadians support the education of younger people and the health care and living standards of older people based on the expectation that society will continue to support education when their own children need the help and to support health care and income supports for the elderly when they reach old age. If the Bob Rae government in the 1990s hadn’t debased the meaning of the phrase, one could describe publicly funded education as one of the key social contracts on which modern society depends. Rapidly escalating tuition breaks that social contract.

It is inconsistent with the principles of our liberal-democratic society. That society is based on the equalization of opportunity so that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Ever since free elementary schooling was introduced in Ontario in the 1850s, education has been critical to that process. Public support for education counteracts the natural tendency for the market to transfer one generation’s ability to the next generation by pricing education beyond reach.

Just as important, none of the arguments typically advanced for increasing the share of tuition in university funding make any sense.

Advocates of higher tuition claim that subsidized post-secondary education amounts to a subsidy of the rich paid for by the poor. The claim is based on the fact that (in part thanks to high tuition itself) the post-secondary participation rate among children of higher-income families is higher than that of children from lower-income families. The problem with the argument is that ignores the source of funding for post-secondary education – the tax system. Because our tax system raises revenue from families roughly in proportion to their income, and because income is unequally distributed, it turns out that public funding actually delivers a transfer of resources from high-income families to middle- and lower-income families – exactly the opposite of what the critics say. And that’s before you consider the likely increase in participation from students from lower-income families that would accompany the elimination of post-secondary tuition.

The other key argument from high tuition advocates is that post-secondary graduates earn more, and therefore it is only fair to the rest of society that they pay the full cost of a service – education – that provides them with a private benefit. There are three major problems with this argument. First, it implicitly assumes that every post-secondary graduate gets the same relative income benefit from her or his education. That is factually incorrect. While there is, on average, an income benefit associated with a post-secondary degree, there is a significant number of graduates for whom that is not true. Many of those graduates will never generate enough extra income to match the tuition costs they and their families incurred.

More important, the argument fails on exactly the same grounds as the distributional argument fails – it ignores the impact of the tax system. The fact is, we already have a well-developed and extremely efficient system for sharing the additional benefits derived from subsidized education with society as a whole – the personal income tax. Even if you ignore the broader societal benefits delivered directly through education, in health care and criminal justice costs, for example, the personal income tax ensures that out of every dollar of additional income a graduate earns as a result of his or her degree, between 30 and 40 cents of that additional income is redistributed to society as a whole through the personal income tax.

All of these problems come together perfectly in the proposals for income-contingent loans that are the high-tuition advocates’ supposed answers to these criticisms. High-tuition, by itself, merely transfers poverty from one generation to the next indirectly as access is denied to all but the poorest and most qualified of students from low-income households. Income contingent loans do so directly, as the following thought experiment demonstrates.

Imagine two graduates, working for the same software company in neighbouring cubicles. They are doing the same job, for the same pay. One student comes from a family with enough resources to pay off her student loans as soon as she graduates and has to start to pay interest. The other has to pay off her student loans from her employment earnings. In net terms, these two people are being paid very different amounts: the lower your parents’ income, the lower your net income.

The income-contingent loan advocates also miss one glaring fact. We already have an income-contingent repayment system for publicly subsidized post-secondary education – it is called the income tax system. It ensures that society will get back a significant share of any additional income the graduate earns as a consequence of society’s investment in his or her post-secondary education.

Finally, exactly the same argument could be used to justify charging fees for secondary or even elementary education. The data on income benefits from education are just as compelling for elementary and secondary education. Why do we provide elementary and secondary education at no cost to the student or the student’s family? Because our grandparents and their grandparents understood that public education was both the foundation for a civilized liberal democratic society and an essential prerequisite for a productive working life.

In our modern knowledge-focused economy, education is even more important; increasingly, college and university education is the new high school.

We’re having the wrong debate entirely about the funding of public education. Instead of finding new ways to justify pushing tuition even higher, we should be looking for ways to get rid of tuition entirely.

Our grandparents and their grandparents were wiser.

-

Hugh Mackenzie has worked for more than 35 years in a variety of different public policy capacities, at all three levels of government as well as in the non-profit sector. Mr. Mackenzie is a recognized expert on the funding of education in Ontario, and is a frequent contributor in the media on public finance. He holds an Honours BA in Economics from the University of Western Ontario and an MA in Economics (Public Finance) from the University of Wisconsin (Madison).

Last Thursday and Friday, I had the pleasure of attending a conference hosted by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, titled Fear of Finance: Financial Literacy and Planning for Post-Secondary Education.

Within the post-secondary sector, it is common knowledge that many low-income students do not apply for the Ontario Student Assistance Plan (OSAP). Some researchers peg the number of students who do not apply for OSAP as high as 50 per cent among the lowest income quartile. While gaining a better understanding of financial barriers themselves is (arguably more) important, a question government and other stakeholders have been asking is “why do students sometimes not take advantage of all the financial assistance available to them?” HEQCO’s conference was aimed at addressing this question.

There are a number of angles I could take in writing a blog about Fear of Finance: there were many engaging speakers on topics ranging from the role of the corporate world in student financial literacy, to mandatory personal finance courses at university, to the OSAP application process itself. However, the issue I would like to address in this blog is the role the idea of “culture” played in conference discourse.

Although nobody intended to directly tackle “culture” it continuously was raised in presentations, and Q&A sessions, and was illuminating many of the assumptions underlying our understanding of financial literacy. Several people articulated financial literacy in terms of fighting against some sort of cultural problem that low-income people have: that these people are illiterate and therefore deficient, and the problem is figuring out how to change them and their behaviour. Perhaps most concerning was a description of Harlem, a predominantly Black area of New York, as requiring counter-insurgency efforts analogous to those in Afghanistan to fight the good fight against the dominant anti-education, anti-literacy culture.

Without dismissing the very real concern that many students do not take advantage of financial aid programs, I want to call into question the legitimacy of understanding financial literacy in these racist and classist cultural terms. If one took anything away from David Hughes passionate presentation about the very successful Pathways to Education Program, it was that without seeing the community, the neighbourhood, and the culture as an ally, post-secondary outreach programs are doomed to failure.  Speaking from personal experience living in a low-income area, many people take incredible pride in their neighbourhood culture, and people band together in creative ways to tackle enormous problems, despite having few resources. To understand the neighbourhood as an enemy is to dismiss and alienate your greatest resource. And to understand neighbourhood culture in abstract, isolated terms is to ignore the role broader social forces and inequality play in the dynamics of poverty.

Secondly, many students coming from low-income backgrounds have tremendous financial literacy: apathy about money is a luxury only afforded to some middle-income and most-upper income youth.  What I believe, and what some conference participants raised, is that the cost-benefit analysis of post-secondary education is significantly different for many low-income students, and students themselves are keenly aware of this fact. For example, if you have witnessed your immediate family struggle with the debt cycle, perhaps swallowing some of that $400 pizza that conference presenter Dan Iannicola discussed, you are going to be much more cautious about beginning your adult life indebted – particularly if you know your family will be unable to help you with repayment. If you are an Aboriginal student hoping to return to your home community where there are few employment opportunities, that $1-million-dollars-over-your-lifetime benefit associated with a university education likely does not hold true. If you are a low-income man, and you know that you can earn $15 to $25 dollars an hour working in a male-dominated field like construction or security straight out of secondary school, then you may be wary of trading four years in the black for four years in the red. There are many reasons why some individuals do not attend post-secondary education; I remain doubtful, however, that an irrational fear of finance is one of them.

If culture belongs anywhere in a discussion of financial aid literacy, it is in a critique of our own culture as researchers, members of post-secondary institutions, and government employees.  Rather than asking what sort of knowledge individuals who do not access financial aid programs are lacking, we should be asking what sort of knowledge do they have, and how does it inform their (rational) decision-making process? Rather than seeing low-income peoples’ behaviours and cultures as things that we need to teach them to change, we should be asking them how we can change our own behaviours to better meet their needs.  Why is it more important that the OSAP application weed out “cheaters” rather than being simple and accessible to those who need financial assistance for their studies? Why must students take out a loan to receive the non-repayable grants they are eligible for? Why do we deliver so much student aid through tax credits that we know low-income families can’t access? Why do we claw back earned income from those that need to work through school? Why do we have an arbitrary assistance maximum that leaves too many students with unmet need? Why aren’t students with known low earnings automatically enrolled in the Repayment Assistance Plan post-graduation? Why can’t we figure out a way for low-income families to receive the Canada Learning Bond when we already know which families are eligible?

Financial aid literacy is an important topic, and one I am thankful to HEQCO for drawing attention to. Conversations like these are crucial in understanding how our assumptions can limit our ability to truly understand a complex, multi-faceted issue like financial aid literacy. Let’s make sure though that the conversation is centred on how to make our post-secondary education systems as accessible as possible – even if it means shaking things up a bit.

-Laura Pin
OUSA Research Analyst

The University of Windsor Students’ Alliance is very excited to welcome the delegates of the OUSA Fall General Assembly to our fine city. For the first time delegates will spend three full days on the University of Windsor campus. This allows delegates the opportunity to fully experience the Windsor campus and all the city has to offer. As well, delegates will get the chance to fully immerse themselves in the policy papers, given two chances for input and editing. The three policies being passed by the delegates this fall are Tuition, System Growth and Accountability. Delegates will get many updates from OUSA’s home office staff and steering committee on everything from finances to constituency focus group findings. Earlier today, we welcomed Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan and newly elected MPP Teresa Piruzza for a very stimulating question and answer session with the conference attendees. Soon, Dr. Ian Clark will be speaking about his new book “Academic Reform,” an exciting topic for students interested in changes to the post-secondary education sector.

It won’t be all work at the conference however; a number of exciting night activities and great restaurant visits have been planned for the weekend, including at the historic Willistead Manor. Students will get to experience a little bit of Windsor’s history in this 36 room mansion built in 1917 by Edward Walker, son of Hiram Walker and situated on a 15-acre park. The Walkers have a long history in Windsor and the area that most of the dining for the conference will be taking place in is the area called Old Walkerville.

The University of Windsor is located on the west end of the city right next to the Ambassador Bridge, North America’s busiest border crossing. The university is also a five minute walk to the Detroit River and a 15 minute drive to downtown Detroit. The UWSA welcomes all of the OUSA delegates to our little city immersed in a transitional culture. We have loved the energy and feedback thus far and are looking forward to a productive weekend!

-Kimberley Orr
Vice-President University Affairs
University of Windsor Students’ Alliance

It is fall convocation season at many of Ontario’s universities. Graduates have returned back to their campuses to don their gowns, receive their diplomas, and walk across their convocation stages into the next chapter of their life. They leave behind memories of their undergraduate years, old professors who helped them succeed, countless hours spent in library study carrels, but also an education system that like them, has reached a point where it too needs to think about its future and the direction it is heading.

From November 4^th – 6^th, at the University of Windsor, the OUSA Fall General Assembly will be taking place. Being discussed are policy papers on tuition, accountability and system growth.  System growth refers to how the Ontario post-secondary education system as a whole, including universities and colleges, will have to grow and change to accommodate future enrolment growth and the projected labour demands of the Ontario economy. This paper was prepared by many different authors including Natalie Cockburn, VP Education of the Federation of Students at the University of Waterloo; Sean Madden, VP University Affairs of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union, Kristen Leal, student-at-large from the University of Waterloo, Luke Dotto, student-at-large from Laurier University, and Laura Pin, Research Analyst for OUSA.

This policy paper is an extensive presentation of the concerns today’s students have regarding the future of the education system in Ontario, and presents educated solutions to key issues that will arise as a consequence of system growth.  These key issues include funding, cost inflation, differentiation, satellite campuses, online education, pathways, infrastructure, and instructional capacity and quality. At this document’s core is the underlying principle that flows through all of OUSA’s policies: that all willing and qualified students must be able to access post-secondary education in Ontario. Applied to system growth, the question becomes concerned with the preservation of accessibility and quality in a context where post-secondary education must expand even beyond its current size.

I look forward to the debate from all delegates about this paper at this weekend’s Fall General Assembly. The recommendations we make about the future of the post-secondary education system in Ontario must be student focused, sustainable, pragmatic and realistic. The document that has been circulated to the delegates has the DNA of the hardworking authors intertwined throughout it, which will soon be joined and made better by the voices of students. In this way, I’m sure that OUSA will come to have a system growth policy truly reflective of the diverse needs of our members.

-Patrick Searle
Vice-President (Administration)
Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance

Here at OUSA we are excitedly preparing for the fall meeting of our General Assembly, which will take place in Windsor this coming weekend! This is the first time this year’s Steering Committee will have the opportunity to meet with our General Assembly to discuss, debate and approve our policies. For the first time ever, OUSA will be releasing an Annual Report, which will be presented in full to the Assembly. The Annual Report provides the staff, Steering Committee, and General Assembly with an opportunity to celebrate our accomplishments and engage in critical self-reflection about where we’ve been, where we’re going and how we’re doing business. Specifically, it will explore the question of what value OUSA provides to students.

OUSA has a very small operating budget, based on the collection of $2.76 for each student at each of our eight full-time member associations. OUSA strives to keep this fee as low as possible for students, raising it traditionally by no more than inflation each year. OUSA’s budget is divided into five categories: communications (19.5 per cent), conferences (14.8 per cent), operating expenses (22.2 per cent), advocacy (20.6 per cent) and research (22.9 per cent). In each of these categories, all costs associated with carrying out that particular function of the organization are contained. For instance, the research line contains costs associated with conducting primary research, purchasing data and paying the research staff. The communications line pays for all of OUSA’s campaigns, press releases, materials, as well as paying the communications staff. All of these categories together allow OUSA to do a tremendous amount of work with relatively few resources.

In September, the Steering Committee approved the annual audit, which was a smooth process. The audited financial statements give a snapshot of the financial health of the organization, which I’m proud to say is quite strong for an organization of our size. With a small budget and continually evolving constituent needs, OUSA must always have an eye on the future. At the spring meeting of the General Assembly we look forward to bringing a four-year Spending & Stability plan that will provide guidance for future Steering Committees on areas of growth, investment and long-term stability for OUSA’s finances. My hope is that this will position organization to continue pursuing an affordable, accessible, quality and accountable post-secondary education system in Ontario.

-Natalie Cockburn
OUSA Vice-President (Finance)

The Government of Manitoba will grant free health coverage to international students, their spouses and dependants, effective April 1, 2012. With this announcement, Manitoba joins Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and British Columbia to grant full health coverage to international students completing a post-secondary credential in province.

OUSA has long advocated for the Ontario government to take similar measures here. In 2009, there were over 66,000 international students studying in Ontario – 25,000 of which were at universities. It is estimated that these students spent $2.1 billion dollars in Ontario and contributed $102 million directly to the provincial coffers through sales and income tax.  Over the next decade, it is estimated that the global demand for international education will increase from 1.9 million students to 7.2 million students. Aside from equity based arguments, there is a strong case to be made for the economic benefit of attracting more international students to Ontario.

Currently, all Ontario international students (except those at the University of Windsor) must buy into the University Health Insurance Plan, a private plan run through Sun Life Financial. For a plan that already costs $684 annually for single students and up to $2,800 annually for students with dependents, health premiums are subject to the plan’s demand, and as such fluctuate significantly year-to-year.

There are several reasons why this system needs rethinking. Primarily, it is far less affordable and comprehensive than our competitors, making Ontario a less attractive place to study. Internationally, Ontario similarly is falling behind. Of the top four international host countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States), only the U.S. does not offer public healthcare to international students. Furthermore, current health coverage is not comprehensive and there is a limited preferred hospital list which accepts the UHIP plan. Visiting hospitals not in UHIP’s preferred hospital network can result in out-of-pocket expenses.

While there are many factors that contribute to success in international recruitment, providing a welcoming and supportive environment to students is a primary feature. The Ontario government should fully open Ontario’s healthcare system to international students by extending eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. It would not only be fair and bring Ontario up to speed nationally; it would allow us to bring the best and brightest minds to Ontario.

-Laura Pin
OUSA Research Analyst

Over the past several months, we’ve posted several updates on our ongoing work on tuition payment processes. Most of this work has focused on our ongoing concerns surrounding flat-fee tuition payment models, payment deadlines and deferral fees. With all of these areas, we have identified several aspects of tuition payment that students view as structurally unfair. Flat-fee tuition charges students for education undelivered, while unrealistic payment deadlines force students to pay unnecessary fees to defer tuition to later months. While these arguments stand on their own merits, it would be instructive to know what effects, if any, that tuition payment processes have on the student choices, particularly with regard to persistence.

In this department, the literature is almost nonexistent. Understandably, the amount of tuition paid by students has typically been a more widely discussed issue than the methods by which they pay it. We believe payment processes are also cause for concern however, since how and when students have to pay can pose real and perceived financial barriers for students. However, to our knowledge, this theory has never been thoroughly tested quantitatively. It would be quite helpful to be able to know the effect to which payment processes affect student choices. While tuition payment deadlines and flat-fee tuition have not been subject to such an analysis, tuition refund policies have.

This study, conducted by Felice Martinello for the Measuring the Effectiveness of Student Aid project, measures the relationship between academic regulations (including tuition refund policies) and student choices and persistence. Students at different size Canadian institutions, with different amounts of selectivity were tracked across several years of post-secondary education. Across categories, institutions with different tuition refund policies were tested against each other. Martinello makes an astute observation in the introduction of the study, noting that “the university characteristics and academic regulations considered here were all the result of policy choices made by the institution itself… due to the lack of empirical evidence on the impact of these policies, it seems clear that decisions were made with inadequate evidence on or consideration of their effects on student progress.”

The results of the study indicate that schools with more generous tuition refund policies and later course withdrawal dates facilitated three outcomes: more program switching in first year, less leaving in second year and shorter degree completion time for those who completed their first program. Essentially, more freedom to adjust post-secondary pathways allowed students to make choices that enabled persistence.

The results of this study have always stuck with me. Tuition refund deadlines are a fairly uncontroversial academic regulation, yet have a relationship with persistence and completion. While I would hesitate to declare a relationship between flat-fee tuition or payment deadlines and student choice or persistence without further analysis, Martinello’s research causes one to wonder what effects more generous tuition payment processes might have. Conversely, it also causes one to wonder if the gradual move towards making payment processes more restrictive is having any negative effects that aren’t being understood or recognized by those currently in charge of setting academic regulation. This gradual move has been most recently and visibly evidenced at Queen’s University where the payment deadline was changed from September 30^th to September 1^st and by the University of Toronto’s recent policy change to a flat-fee payment model.

I would echo Martinello’s observation that more empirical evidence is required to inform decisions around academic regulations; clearly their impact can be significant.

-Chris Martin
OUSA Director of Research

Normally, accountability and transparency are rather straightforward concepts. The former centres on one party being held responsible to another party for information, decisions, and ultimately action whereas the latter denotes that the processes of information dissemination, decision making, and action taking by one party are accessible, clear, and open to examination by the other party. Generally, if there are only two parties involved, accountability and transparency are quite simple and linear. For instance, a homebuilder is held accountable to those that purchase a newly constructed home. An employee is held accountable by an employer. However, when there exists a plurality of stakeholders and constituencies, accountability and transparency are much more complex. This complexity is even further exacerbated if funding is involved from multiple stakeholders. Indeed, such is the intricate backdrop in which post-secondary institutions (PSIs) such as universities operate in Ontario.

Similar to health care, post-secondary education (PSE) is a public good given that it is subsidized by the provincial government via taxpayer revenue. As such, regardless of direct or indirect engagement by taxpayers, accountability and transparency is ultimately central to them as the origin of funding. In addition, as the chief steward of said funding, the provincial government has a substantially vested interest in accountability and transparency given their direct role in allocating funds to PSIs. However, one PSE stakeholder group that is often overlooked during discussion of accountability and transparency are the actual recipients of PSE, that is, the students. In fact, as tuition has sharply increased over the years (while government funding has not kept pace) the proverbial stakes are even higher.

Although nuanced, identifying to whom universities are accountable and transparent is debated less than what PSIs are accountable for and identifying metrics to gage their accountability and transparency.

From a broad perspective, on behalf of the public, the provincial government ensures that universities serve their function of creating an educated citizenry that is capable of critical thinking and synthesis skills applicable to all facets of life as well as meaningfully contribute to Ontario’s workforce, economy, and overall health and well-being. In term of the mechanics of accountability and transparency, the provincial government is involved in several ways including envelope funding, multi-year accountability agreements (MYAAs), and through appointing or approving provincial representatives on the Board of Governors of each university.

More specifically, MYAAs provide an opportunity for universities and the provincial government to articulate how they will both assist in improvements within the areas of access, quality, and accountability. Ultimately, a small portion of government funding for base operating grants are withheld until the provincial government receives status reports from universities documenting which steps have been taken and which targets have been met. Although on the surface this mechanism seems reasonable, what is painfully absent yet again is the involvement of students (as the primary stakeholder of PSE) and in many case, other university stakeholders such as faculty and staff. At the very least, MYAAs should receive genuine input from all university stakeholders and be annually passed through university governing bodies, such as the Boards.

Finally, as previously mentioned, the provincial government has formal representation on the Board of Governors at all universities (though it typically allows Boards to select these representatives for the Province). However, students are yet again not adequately represented on these bodies. For the most part, there are two or fewer voting student representatives for each undergraduate and graduate level (as outlined by the table below). All this to say that even if MYAAs were vetted by a university’s Board of Governors, the clear underrepresentation of students provides for a disproportionately small voice. Though some may argue that university governance boards must look out for the institution as a whole and not for the interests of a particular stakeholder group, students see no reason why these must be necessarily separate objectives. Universities should amend their respective acts of incorporation to provide for greater student representation on the Board of Governors of each university, all in the name of accountability and transparency.

-Sam Minniti
Executive Director
McMaster Association of Part-Time Students

We are now over a week removed from Election Day, and the dust is starting to settle. The final vote resulted in the governing Ontario Liberal Party winning 53 of the 107 ridings. The Ontario PC Party won 37 seats, with the Ontario NDP rounding out the Legislature with 17 MPPs. This means that Ontario will have its first minority government since 1985 and the only minority in Ontario’s history where the governing party is just one seat shy of a majority.

There are 31 new Members of Provincial Parliament and therefore plenty of new relationships to build at our upcoming Student Advocacy Conference at Queen’s Park. Premier Dalton McGuinty will announce his cabinet on Thursday and we are looking forward to working closely with whoever is chosen as Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and their colleagues to advance the interests of students.  So what does this all mean for Ontario’s undergraduate students? Plenty.

The Liberals’ platform included several significant promises for post-secondary students. The most considerable – and expensive – is a plan to implement a tuition reduction grant worth 30% of average fees for all students out of high school for less than 4 years, from families with annual incomes of less than $160,000. The grant is set to be introduced in January (worth half of the normal grant or $800 for eligible undergraduates), and we have already begun working hard to ensure that the application process is a simple and seamless one for students. In September 2011, the grant is likely going to come off students’ tuition bills directly. Given how many students have already paid winter term fees though, the January release will probably be in the form of a cheque. The implementation of the new grant will hopefully serve as a catalyst for some complimentary changes to OSAP, including the harmonization of the Ontario Access Grants with the new tuition grant. There are still outstanding details to be worked through, but we’ll keep you updated on the progress.

Also high on the list of student priorities will be the development of a new tuition framework. The current set of regulations that control tuition fees in Ontario is set to expire at the end of this academic year. The Liberals have indicated their intention to develop a new framework for fall 2012. We have already been working for many months on a plan for what the new framework should include. Beyond just how much tuition can go up by, some of the other issues at stake include: regulating payment deadlines and deferral fees; charging fees on a per-credit basis; providing tuition predictability for international students; eliminating the differential caps for professional programs; and changes to the Student Access Guarantee. We’ve blogged about many of these topics in the past, and you’ll certainly be hearing more on all of these fronts as the tuition conversation continues through the fall.

There was a host of other promises made by the Liberals as well, including extending the interest-free grace period for graduates who work in the non-profit sector, doubling the length of teachers college to two years, and building three new undergraduate campuses. The government will also continue the implementation of a number of initiatives that were in progress prior to the election, including:

• launching the Ontario Online Institute;
• increasing the number of international students;
• hiring more mental health counsellors on university campuses through the youth mental health strategy;
• negotiating strategic mandates and new multi-year accountability agreements with universities;
• introducing satellite campus regulations;
• developing a more robust credit transfer system;
• modifying the provincial funding formula; and
• incentivizing improved teaching quality.

There’s certainly a lot going on in post-secondary education right now and plenty of developments that can be shaped in the best interest of students. All of these issues will be the focus of conversation at our upcoming General Assembly at the University of Windsor from November 4-6. We will also be releasing a series of reports over the coming months, including releases on cost inflation, the new tuition framework and ancillary fees. It’s an exciting time for OUSA and Ontario’s students as we embark on a new Legislative session that is set to have post-secondary education front and centre for the foreseeable future.

-Sam Andrey
OUSA Executive Director

The recent Ontario election had many issues brought to the forefront of the public dialogue, some from the parties themselves and some from stakeholders like students and universities. This election cycle, OUSA joined up with the College Student Alliance (CSA) in order to draw more attention to students’ needs and try and get post-secondary education as an election issue that was front and centre in the debate throughout the campaign. From this, we developed our It’s Your Vote website and campaign that presented information on how to vote, a student platform of commitments we would like the parties to run on, as well as an ongoing blog throughout the campaign, and a platform comparison chart that gave a fair view of all the parties’ commitments to post-secondary education without any of the party rhetoric.

Thanks to the hard work of student groups across Ontario, including student associations and other alliances, post-secondary education was prominently featured in all four major party platforms, and was even a focus of two of the six questions asked in the televised leaders’ debate. As each party committed to more for students, others joined in and continued to push each other into debating what the best course of action is to improve access and affordability for students across the province.

During the election, we released a poll that showed over 90% of Ontarians believe that post-secondary education is vital to the economic prosperity of the province, and even more interestingly, over 50% said they’d be willing to pay more taxes in order to make post-secondary more affordable and accessible.

Throughout the election campaign, we had the opportunity to engage our students, the public and the media with some great coverage in all of the major newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations across the province. Perhaps our most successful tool was the party platform comparison chart, which had over 10,000 views in the days leading up to Election Day. That on top of thousands of views on our YouTube videos, made this campaign one of our most successful in terms of public reach.

In summary, I believe that students were successful in making post-secondary education an important election issue in the recent campaign, and I hope that students and the public went to the polls with higher education in mind. With all the parties committing to improving higher education, students have come out of this election as winners.

-Alvin Tedjo
OUSA Director of Communications