Here we are up bright and early for Vote-Day! I love elections, and you should too; today is your chance to help shape your future. Every vote really does count, and if you want to make yourself count then you need to vote. I’ve never heard of so much to choose from in education as we have this election, and we’re not likely to show up on people’s radar again if we don’t come out for this one. But it’s more than just your education… it’s your health care, your social programs, your roads and your taxes; it’s your chance to really grab a hold of the world that you’ll be living in after you make it out of here.

The only thing that’s not a huge deal about this election is casting your vote. That’s easier than ever this year. Not registered? Doesn’t matter. Just show up with a piece of ID and an approved piece of mail with your name and address on it. A student? Elections Ontario really wants you to vote, and that means that you get to vote in a couple places: home or school, anything goes. If you want to vote in your university town then just make sure that the documents you bring show where you live while at school (it can even be your lease, your university tuition statement or your academic transcript). Busy all day? Polls are open 9am to 9pm, and there should be at least one on your campus. Check out this link to find your closest polling station.

Getting informed about who to vote for is easier than ever too. With tons of resources on our home and campaign (itsyourvote.ca) sites you can go to the polls with everything you need to make the choice that’s right for you.

It’s my hope that you find everything you need above in order to be informed and comfortable enough to find voting fulfilling. Most of all, I hope you find it in yourself to show the world around you that you care what it has been up to and where it is going. Regardless of what you decide that you want your government to look like tomorrow, OUSA will be there pushing the student agenda and offering its educated solutions.

Best of luck, and happy E-Day!

-Sean, OUSA President

Reposted from ItsYourVote.ca

A student’s background and upbringing can greatly affect their likelihood or willingness to pursue post-secondary education.  And we know that the majority of young people make the decision to attend college or university before even entering secondary school.  The various influences in a young person’s life can greatly affect the decisions that they make about their future.  Providing choices and opportunities early on, can have a positive impact down the road.

There is a direct correlation between level of education and level of poverty.  Organizations such as Pathways to Education (Pathways) seek to unlock the potential of youth and allow them to flourish in a familiar and comfortable environment.  Pathways is a charitable organization that helps low income youth graduate from high school, and transition into post-secondary education.  They provide leadership, expertise and community based programs to lower dropout rates.  Currently, Pathways operates in over 11 communities, across 4 provinces.  In Regent Park (a community in Toronto) 850 youth have graduated through the program and the dropout rate for youth is now 12% (half of the City of Toronto and provincial average).  Funding for programs such as this has proven to be a successful investment for government and early outreach initiatives should be supported in schools and communities.

Garnering support and guidance through community-based initiatives will ensure that all aspects of young peoples lives are positively reinforcing their future.  It is important that they be community based to further develop ties between the program and members and ensure successful continuity for future generations.  Each community is unique and has specific needs.  Understanding this, and integrating it into the outreach initiatives will further ensure success into the future.

A student’s high school years can be a very formative time where they are faced with important life choices.  Selecting the right courses, and achieving positive results can impact their post-secondary opportunities.  Generally, students achieve better results in school when they are engaged in their subject matter and are working towards meaningful goals.  Investing in training and professional development for guidance counselors ensures that students have positive role- models, providing good advice, regardless of their upbringing or background.  Less than 10% of students feel that they have adequate information about the cost of education and options available to them.  Providing them with options and opportunities will ensure that they starting out on the right foot.

No party has addressed early outreach in their platform. We strongly urge the elected government to give attention to this important topic.  Investing in early outreach initiatives provides positive long-term results and increases participation of underrepresented groups and is evident at any stage of a student’s life.

-Brooke Jan
College Student Alliance

Reposted from ItsYourVote.ca

Like any post-secondary student, I have taken classes that were phenomenal: the course was well organized, the instructor was engaging, and the material was presented in a variety of ways. I have also taken classes, which to be frank, sucked.

It’s not surprising that students are concerned about the quality of their education. Beyond the expense of attending college or university, most students are genuinely interested in their studies and want to get the most out of their education as they possibly can. Right now, the quality of instruction at Ontario’s post-secondary institutions depends largely on the individual instructor. University and college instructors typically do not receive any mandatory training throughout their career in how to teach effectively. To be fair, some instructors have developed strategies for effective teaching on their own, and others have sought out advice from resources on campus. Many instructors, however, are unfamiliar with important pedagogical issues like active learning strategies and technology-assisted learning. Every instructor – even those with experience – would benefit from opportunities to upgrade their teaching skills.

At present, most campuses have a Centre for Teaching and Learning but the use of these services is optional and instructors who need help the most are unlikely to seek it out. Students are left to puzzle at why there is absolutely no requisite training for post-secondary instructors when secondary school teachers need a full degree in education. The general public seems to share the same concern about teaching quality. According to a poll conducted from September 9^th to 12^th by Abacus Data, Ontarians overwhelmingly support teacher training, with 82 per cent of survey respondents agreeing with the statement “all new instructors in colleges and universities should receive mandatory training in how to teach effectively.”

Students propose that the government target a portion of new funding to the development of mandatory pedagogical training for all new instructors and teaching assistants. Each institution could develop its own curriculum and provide instruction through existing campus infrastructure to minimize costs. Post-secondary education is more necessary than ever before, and students should be taught by instructors that have the tools necessary to facilitate a high quality learning experience. We encourage all parties vying for election to keep this in mind and ensure that students receive the utmost quality of education in every regard.

-Luke Speers
VP University Affairs
Brock University Students’ Union

In yesterday’s Globe & Mail, I was rather surprised to see an editorial by Brock professor Michael Armstrong opposing a recent government clarification regarding Ontario’s compulsory ancillary fee protocol. For the vast majority of Ontarians unaware of the existence of this regulation: it is essentially a regulation limiting the amount of extra fees universities can charge in addition to tuition. The limitation is based upon the simple principle that universities can only charge compulsory ancillary fees that students agree to. These fees must also be exclusively limited to non-tuition related functions; that is, functions of a university not related to instruction (though textbooks and academic materials retained by the student are allowed).

This past spring, OUSA advocated for the government to clarify the ancillary fee protocol in light of several reports of students being charged fees to access online testing software. Specifically, students at McMaster, Waterloo and Laurier were required to purchase software or online access codes to take mandatory tests or assignments. In July, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities sent a memo to universities clarifying that mandatory fees for testing materials with a direct link to the student’s final grade were to be disallowed.

Now, perhaps some of my surprise with the editorial comes from the fact that compulsory ancillary fees hardly ever get media attention, but most of it can be traced to a single, gross oversight in his argument. Armstrong argues that online testing software is an invaluable pedagogical tool, and that the recent ruling has meant that professors have had to stop using them. He even goes so far as to say that his colleagues are switching back to using paper and pen evaluations; that the regulation of ancillary fees has halted innovation and progress. However, not once does he consider that universities could or should pay for this software out of operating revenue from government and tuition fees.

This facet of OUSA’s objection to these fees must be unmistakably clear: students do not oppose the proliferation of online testing materials. As students, we agree that the interactive simulations and rapid feedback provided by online testing can have a positive impact on the classroom experience. However, it must also be recognized that positive innovations in instruction must not be implemented by downloading their costs to students. Evaluation has always been – and must continue to remain – the responsibility of institutions and faculty. It is precisely what students pay tuition for.

Universities and colleges have avoided the use of these fees by making online assignments optional, by making accommodations for those that choose not to purchase the applications, by developing their own online assignments using the university’s online learning environment, or by having the university purchase the online access codes for students through the operating budget, as it does with other software. While the latter option is the most preferable, all of these solutions are viewed by OUSA as acceptable mechanisms of rectifying the ancillary fee violations associated with online marking and assignment tools.

If, as Armstrong puts it, “Ontario universities […] can’t cover these new costs,” students would ask why evaluation is not a top spending priority for our institutions. If these products truly are more cost-effective than having professors develop their own tests and assignments, then institutions should be lining up to purchase them. The first option cannot be to turn to students for more when tuition and compulsory fee revenue has climbed from less then a fifth of total operating revenue to nearly half.

One final important point is not all online testing software is created equal. While some allow the professor to design and customize innovative and engaging courses, other programs simply take textbook material and provide the professor with pre-made lessons for students. For instance, some business simulation software provides students with the opportunity to test investment theories utilizing a simulated stock market, providing students with practical experience to supplement their theoretical knowledge. However, other programs such as Aplia (paid for by students at McMaster University until recently) simply digitize the components of a textbook, providing an online questionnaire on each chapter for students to complete. If it is the wish of universities to offload their teaching responsibilities to textbook publishers, it should not come at a new cost to students.

Students are encouraged by the enthusiasm of faculty and institutions towards digitized and online testing and evaluation. However, this enthusiasm must be realized through a commitment to the long-standing tradition of universities paying for evaluation, not through new student fees. This investment would, as Michael Armstrong put it, support Ontario’s software developers and allow innovations in the classroom to continue.

-Sean Madden
OUSA President

The College Student Alliance and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance are pleased to present a video message from each of Ontario’s political parties. As you consider your options before heading to the polls, we encourage you to hear what each party has to say about why and how you should vote on October 6th. Click to watch each party’s message to students:

Ontario Liberal Party Message

Ontario PC Party Message

Ontario NDP Message

Green Party of Ontario Message

Reposted from ItsYourVote.ca

Throughout the past couple weeks, the It’s Your Vote blog has been discussing different election issues that are important to students. These have included tuition, financial assistance, mobility, and quality. Another issue which sometimes is less prominent in provincial discussions, but is very important to students, is that of student support services.

Student support services are any services that post-secondary institutions provide to students outside of basic classroom instruction. These include health care services, counselling and wellness services, writing clinics, physical recreation services, academic transition services, international student services, Aboriginal student centres and career services among others. Research has shown that student support services have a significant impact on student success. Many support services have been associated with higher persistence rates; that is, students at institutions with robust student service are less likely to drop-out before completing their credential.

When post-secondary students prematurely drop-out of their studies it results in lost student potential. Particularly in the context of challenging, stressful academic environments, the presence of student support services can often make the difference between a student being able to survive and thrive in their educational environment and a student feeling forced to discontinue their studies. For example, according to a 2009 survey, one in five students are affected by depression or anxiety. An inability to access support services can lead to an amplification of existing problems, which ultimately has devastating consequences on a personal, academic, and societal level. In fact, a 2010 study that surveyed students before and after their first year found that students are largely disappointed with the level of student support and out-of-class interaction.

Unfortunately, student support services are often the first to be cut when institutional budgets are tight. To reverse the chronic underfunding of these services, further improve graduation rates, and make improvements to the overall learning environment, the government should make the of funding student support services a priority. The best way to ensure student support services receive adequate funding is through the designation of targeted funding within the provincial funding formula. For example, the current disabilities funding envelope in the provincial operating budget ensures that support services for students with disabilities receive consistent, predictable funding. Investigating ways of tying funding to other specific student support services, either through further envelopes or other dedicated funding mechanisms, will encourage colleges and universities to strengthen their services so they can support more students and develop innovative ways of providing assistance.

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

Ontario is currently enthralled with its third election period in fewer than 12 months.  For students at university, the provincial election on October 6^th should be one of high importance as the Provincial Government dictates the policies and programs that govern the educational institutions we attend, that establish the training programs that contribute to our future success, and control many of the professional standards we will follow when we graduate with our diplomas and degrees.  I cannot express the true extent that the outcome of October 6^th will impact my future and that of my peers.  Despite this importance, as a student I am told that I and my fellow students are not expected to vote, and, consequently, we are not expected to express how we would change our education with our vote.  Expectations, however, can be wrong.

In the past two weeks, a number of publications have featured articles that have focused on the state of our education system.  Suffice to say, the reviews were not favourable and many of these articles conclude that something must be done.  The problem is that they can’t agree on a solution.  Margaret Wente, of the Globe and Mail, argues that is symptomatic of my generation’s entitlement combined with ‘the modern fallacy of higher education… [that] the acquisition of a BA is a sort of alchemy that can transform intellectual dross into gold.”  Meanwhile, James Bradshaw’s article, from the same publication, features the President of McMaster, Patrick Deane, stating that the crisis facing our system is “rooted in the diminishing capacity of universities to provide two things: meaning contact with accessible professors, and varied types of learning.”  However, Joanne Chianello of the Ottawa Citizen cites in an interview with Ian Clark, former President of the Council of Ontario Universities, that the main fault of the post-secondary education system is that it is based on an out-dated research-centric model.  Perhaps all three are right, but then we must consider reporters like Jennifer Yang of the Toronto Star who imply that secondary-school credit mills and high school grade inflation are the main contributors to skewed expectations.

This is the problem I, and many of my fellow undergraduate students, struggle with each day.  As young adults we struggle with expectations that are ingrained into our upbringing from inception.  Margaret Wente’s article supports this, claiming “[Entitlement] came from a generation of adults who believed that kids should never be allowed to fail.”  This sentiment certainly seems to be held by Jennifer Yang’s teacher who artificially enhanced her grade by a full 25%.  It is no wonder that graduating high school students stress and strain for a minimum average of 85% – it’s how we’re told we succeed. It’s how we were taught to shape our expectations, to mold our dreams.  This is admirable – we should not be afraid of encouraging our youth to succeed, but we need a system that can help them get there.

Of the many students who entered post-secondary education this fall, quite a few of them will experience a shock when they receive their first grade and it falls into a grading threshold they are told to abhor.  Some students will be invigorated, some will be put-off, and some may give up.  Unfortunately, for those who seek to improve, there are not enough resources to go around.  This may be attributed to the fact that, as James Bradshaw’s article states, the number of students in university  have increased by 25% while faculty numbers have remained stagnant, or that student support services are under-resourced and under-staffed.  However, even if a student does find access to help, and does improve, they may find that those childhood standards are no longer attainable.  Indeed, their expectations inverse as they are told that 85% is no longer a minimum, but is now inconceivable – the student’s department does not assign marks higher than an 84%.

To add to the burden our expectations impose, we cannot forget the realities.  The reality is that, despite unprecedented levels of access to higher education, the cost of education is higher than it has ever been and, indeed, is the highest in the country.  As a 2009 report by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) found, our system is financially unsustainable.  Perhaps, as Joanne Chianello’s article alludes to, it is because the combination of teaching and research currently pursued by our post-secondary institutions is untenable.  Or perhaps, as Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail concluded, it is because our system is tilted to the convenience of the providers (professors and administrators), and not the public (students).  The unavoidable truth, whatever the cause, is that education is becoming more and more costly and, consequently, more unaffordable to prospective students.  To compensate for rising costs, we add to the list of our expectations that we will manage a part-time job to help afford our education.  This shifts our youth’s perspective: education is no longer seen in the light of a pursuit of knowledge and is instead seen as a race against the ticking clock of a depleting bankroll.  It is no wonder that grades – and standards – are prone to slip when a student is managing employment on top of school, a tribulation that was less prominent when tuition was lower and access to post-secondary education was limited to the wealthy few.

A student about to graduate with their first post-secondary credential is often faced with an additional weight in order to meet their expectations: the need to have an extracurricular edge in today’s job market.  As I have mentioned before, I am privileged to hold a high-level position in student government, one that exposes me to valuable experience and professional development that many of my peers don’t have.  Understandably, working full-time in student government has added a year to my undergraduate education, but the benefits of higher employability post-graduation is worth the extra year.  Many of my fellow peers are in a similar situation and look to community service, conferences, internships, and exchanges as a way to augment their resume.  And let us not forget despite our student status, we should have the opportunity to pursue interests and activities beyond the classroom.  As stated, this involvement comes at a cost and, as Margaret Wente’s article is quick to point out, this causes many students to be “unapologetic that [their] study hours have shrunk to the vanishing point.”  However, it’s easier to justify that same trade-off when the recruiters from McKinsey, or Nexen, or TD Canada Trust are reinforcing the need of the elusive ‘competitive edge.’  In fact, one recent studyfound that work-integrated learning has a significant impact on students’ labour market outcomes. We live in an economic market where an undergraduate degree alone is an insufficient stepping ladder.

It is hard to succeed, to meet those expectations that we have developed and fostered since we were a child.

So when you think about voting this election, you may realize it is hard to convey to our government which solution you support.  It is hard to convey any view through a checkbox.  But when you do vote, you send a clear, strong message.

You expect them to do something about it.

-Kieran Slobodin
Vice-President (University Affairs)
Queen’s Alma Mater Society

Reposted from ItsYourVote.ca

Today, the Statistics Canada released the university tuition fee averages for the 2011-12 academic year. As expected, fees rose by the maximum increases allowable by the Ontario government’s tuition framework to a new provincial average of $6,640. Arts and science undergraduate programs averaged around $5,400, with higher tuition fees in professional programs pulling the average up. The framework allows first-year arts and science programs to increase by 4.5%, first-year professional and graduate programs by 8%, and continuing students by 4%, while overall each institution can’t increase fees by more than 5%. Under this framework, Ontario students have been paying the highest fees in the country for two years. Now they must brace themselves for a third.

None of this should come as a surprise. Nor should it come as a surprise that rising tuition has impacted the affordability and accessibility of higher education for many in the Province, despite ongoing investments in financial assistance. It should also not come as a surprise that institutions continue to increase their costs at rates well above inflation and argue that more tuition revenue is necessary to preserve quality.

In many ways, it’s an old news story now, fraught with familiar and tired arguments on all sides. The question is: should students care in 2011?

The answer is an unequivocal yes. In addition to the perceived and real barriers to access created by tuition increases, they are massively unpopular. The political parties have taken notice, and three have now come out in support of plans to either freeze or reduce the tuition burden on students.

In a recent poll commissioned by OUSA and CSA, 74% of Ontarians agreed that students have to borrow too much to pay for their post-secondary education. Over half agreed that more should be spent to reduce tuition fees and improve student aid, even if it means paying more taxes. We have extensively covered how the parties’ plans would improve the affordability and accessibility of education.

If you care about this issue, an opportunity is coming on October 6^th to make sure that education does not continue to become less affordable each year. This isn’t my view based on belief alone; rather, students have worked hard and now have a unique situation where the political parties are engaging in our issues and promising to do something about them.

Each party has a different plan for higher education. When the 2012-13 tuition averages come out next September, the figures are going to reflect who is elected to office. All students owe it to themselves to check out each party’s plans, get informed and change things for themselves on October 6^th.

-Sean Madden
OUSA President

Reposted from ItsYourVote.ca

There has been lots of attention in the media lately about the economy, unemployment and job creation. It may come as a surprise to those following provincial election coverage, then, that most experts predict Ontario will have a labour shortage in many key fields in the near future. As baby-boomers continue to retire, the proportion of the population working will decline. At the same time, the percentage of jobs requiring post-secondary training is at 70 per cent and rising. Consequently, it has never been more important that every Ontarian have the opportunity to attend post-secondary education, regardless of socio-economic circumstance.

Currently, Ontario sits at 64 per cents post-secondary attainment.  That is, that 64 per cent of the population aged 25 to 64 has a post-secondary credential. While this number may seem close to the needs of the future, post-secondary enrolment is substantially lower for students from low-income backgrounds, and also students whose parents did not attend higher education, those from rural or northern regions, and Aboriginal students.  According to research by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, students from high-income families are more than twice as likely to attend university as students from low-income families. Aboriginal students are half as likely to attend post-secondary education, and those from rural and northern areas also have lower participation rates.

Financial constraints are one of the key reasons why many students from underrepresented groups cannot access college or university. In fact, the average need-based aid package has increased by just $650 in constant dollars since 1993, in the same time that tuition has increased by $3,000.Too many students – and most often those with the greatest financial need – are inadequately assisted by the public Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). While the system has come a long way, many problems still exist regarding the way in which OSAP determines student need and provides grants and loans. To name a few: the maximum assistance levels are too low to meet need; more financial resources needs to be provided through non-repayable aid; OSAP tends to overestimate the amount that parents are able to contribute and students are able to save from employment; and students who are eligible for grants must also first apply to take out a loan, preventing many debt-averse students from applying at all.

This is why students are encouraged to see student financial assistance play a significant role in the education platforms of the Ontario Liberal Party, Ontario PC Party, and the Ontario New Democratic Party. The Liberal Party has proposed a tuition grant to all families with dependent students studying at a post-secondary institution whose combined family income is below $160,000 annually, which will both lower up-front costs and student debt. The Ontario PC Party is planning to decrease the parental contribution expectations in the OSAP need formula, which will have the effect of making dependent students from middle income families able to access more loans and grants. And finally, the NDP plans to take interest off of provincial student loans.  To read more about each party’s education platforms check out our blog on tuition and financial assistance promises.

In order to foster an equitable society able to meet the demand of the future economy, the provincial government must ensure access to post-secondary education. All willing and qualified students should be able to access post-secondary education and training, regardless of family background or income, and need-based aid is a critical component of that pursuit. We look forward to continuing dialogue with each party and are anxious to hear more about their plans as the election unfolds.

-Kim Orr
VP University Affairs, University of Windsor Students’ Alliance