Posted September 15, 2011

The Ontario election is underway, and all of the major political parties have now put forward proposals to change the tuition or student aid systems to enhance the affordability and accessibility of post-secondary education. Since different tuition and student aid plans have been announced, there has been a lot of misinformation concerning how exactly the proposals will affect students, with a number of commentators publishing inaccurate speculation.

This blog is meant to provide a more accurate description of the parties’ proposals. In the months leading up to the campaign, we have been working with all of the major parties on their commitments to post-secondary education. We have gathered the following details through discussions with representatives from each party. We will update the blog if any additional information or proposals become available. If you have any questions about the proposals, please feel free to comment below or contact us directly and we will do our best to get an answer for you.

ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY

Announcement: Announced with the party platform Forward. Together. on September 5^th

Summary: Reduce tuition fees for most full-time college and university undergraduate students with a new grant worth 30% of average tuition fees

Who’s eligible? Students are eligible for the new grant if they meet the following criteria:

• Dependent (out of high school for less than 4 years);
• A Canadian Citizen, Permanent Resident, or Protected Person;
• An Ontario resident (student or parent resided in Ontario for 12 consecutive months prior to beginning study);
• A full-time student (minimum 60 per cent course load as defined by the institution);
• In satisfactory academic standing (can gain grant back if student returns to satisfactory standing);
• Studying toward a college or undergraduate credential, excluding second-entry professional programs (medicine, law, dentistry, optometry, etc.);
• From a family with a combined parental income before taxes of less than $160,000 (about five out of six students).

How much is it worth? The grant will be worth 30% of average tuition fees and will increase accordingly each year as tuition rises. For first-entry undergraduate programs, the average is currently around $5,400 – so the grant will be $1,600 for all university students this year (regardless of institution or program). For college programs, the average is currently around $2,400 – so the grant will be worth $730 for all college students. For a four-year undergraduate program, the total grant would be worth $6,400. In total, the program is expected to cost $420 million in its first year.

When will it start? The party is promising to implement the new grant for January if elected. So each eligible student will have half of the grant made available in January 2012 – meaning $800 for university students and $365 for college students. The full amount would then be available in September 2012.

How will it work? Like many platform announcements, some of the details regarding how the tuition grant will be implemented are unclear. What has been clarified is that the grant will come off of students’ tuition bills automatically without a separate process. Due to the party’s desire to have this grant be accessible to all eligible students (not just those who apply to OSAP), it will be necessary for universities and colleges to know each student’s family income and dependency status. It is unclear exactly how this will be implemented, but it is likely that the current university and college application systems would be used.

For students who receive money from the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP), the new tuition grant will not result in a reduction in financial assistance from what students are already receiving. Because the $1,600 is a grant, not an outright tuition reduction (although it functions much the same way) OSAP funding and provincial and federal education tax credits will not be affected. That is no student will have reduced OSAP eligibility or receive fewer tax credits as a result of the new tuition grant.

Currently, all OSAP assistance above $7,300 is automatically converted to a non-repayable grant through a program called the Ontario Student Opportunities Grant (OSOG). This grant is in place to ensure that students with high assessed need are not saddled with unreasonable debt. The party has committed to keeping the OSOG cap at $7,300. While some have speculated that that the new tuition grant will simply replace OSOG funds for the students with the highest need (thereby giving no additional aid to those students), the party has indicated that the grant will be in addition to any OSOG grant a student receives. That is that the grant will convert the first part of a student’s loan to a grant, reducing student debt (like other provincial grants). For instance, if a student receives the maximum OSAP package of $12,240, they will only need to pay back $5,700, because beyond the $4,940 OSOG grant, an additional $1,600 would be covered by the new tuition grant. This example assumes that the student was not eligible for any other grant programs offered by the province.

What will happen with tuition fees? Those students eligible for the new grant will see a reduction in their fees. Thereafter, tuition fees will continue to increase, as it will for students ineligible for the grant. The Ontario Liberal Party has announced its intention to continue regulating fee increases to no more than 5% annually as it does now, but has not publicly declared the percentage increase that will be allowed.

ONTARIO PC PARTY

Announcement: Contained within the party platform changebook released on May 29^th; clarification of proposal announced on August 22^nd

Summary: Reduce the parental contribution expectations for Ontario Student Loans to increase availability of grants and loans, primarily for middle-class families

Who’s eligible? Students eligible for the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP)

How much is it worth? The impact of the change on each student will depend on their individual circumstances and family income. The change will increase the assessed need for most students. For any student currently receiving the maximum OSAP funding ($12,240 for a two-term academic year), the change will not result in any new assistance. However those currently receiving less than the maximum assistance will see an increase in aid. It will also open up OSAP eligibility to more students.

For example, a student studying in an arts or science undergraduate program from a family with an annual income below $60,000 already is typically eligible for the maximum provincial assistance and will not see a benefit with this change. The same student from a family making $85,000 would receive an additional $2,500 in grants under the proposed changes. If this student’s family made $100,000, he or she would receive approximately $300 more in loans and $1,000 more in grants. Finally, the same student from a family earning $120,000 would probably receive no additional aid.

The party is proposing to pay for this change in part by eliminating the 75 Ontario Trillium Scholarships for international PhD students, which costs the government $2 million and universities $1 million each year.

When will it start? No date has been specified. The earliest the changes could be implemented is for the 2012-13 academic year.

How will it work? OSAP is comprised of two loans: one from the federal government and one from the Ontario government. Both programs use different formulas to assess financial need. For students who are considered dependent (single and less than four years out of high school), a portion of your family’s income is considered in determining how much financial assistance you need. The contribution expectation varies based on income, with higher income families expected to contribute more to the cost of education than lower income families. Under the current formulas, the Ontario Student Loans Program expects a higher proportion of parents’ discretionary income to go toward the cost of their child’s education than the federal Canada Student Loans Program.

The proposal from the Ontario PC Party is to harmonize Ontario’s parental contribution formula with the federal government’s formula. This will result in lower parental contribution expectations, which will increase the amount of OSAP loans and grants that middle-income families receive. The students who will benefit the most are those that are already received the maximum assistance from the federal Canada Student Loans Program ($7,140) but are not receiving any aid from the Ontario Student Loans Program. By harmonizing the parental contributions, these students will be eligible for more provincial aid, most of which will be non-repayable since all aid above $7,300 is converted to a grant.

What will happen with tuition fees? The framework that regulates tuition fee increases to no more than 5% annually expires at the end of this academic year (2011-12). The Ontario PC Party has not announced its intentions to extend or amend this framework, but have ruled out the idea of a tuition freeze.

ONTARIO NDP

Announcement: Announced on September 15^th

Summary: Freeze tuition fees for the next four years and eliminate provincial interest on Ontario Student Loans.

Who’s eligible? All non-international students will be eligible for the tuition freeze. All OSAP recipients, in addition to anyone currently paying back Ontario Student Loans, will be eligible for the interest relief.

How much is it worth? Under the current tuition regulation, average tuition fees are allowed to increase by no more than 5% annually. If this regulation had continued, the average undergraduate student would have faced an increase of $330 in 2012-13, while the average college student would have had their fees increase by $120. As a result of the freeze, that increase will not take place. Over the course of the four-year freeze, the value of the freeze would be worth $1,430 for the average undergraduate student and $520 for the average college student.

The value to each student of the proposed interest relief will depend on the provincial debt that has been accumulated. The party has said that removing provincial interest from OSAP loans will save the average student $60 per year on an average total (federal and provincial) debt of $25,000. If a graduate took the full ten-year amortization period to repay their provincial loans, this interest relief could be worth up to $600.

When will it start? The 2012-13 academic year

How will it work? Currently, tuition in Ontario is regulated by a government framework that prohibits institutions from raising their overall average tuition fees by more than 5%. Due to the fact that both colleges and universities rely on increasing tuition revenue to meet rising costs, any freeze is typically met with some increase to per-student funding from the government. We estimate that approximately $150 million in additional funds would need to be provided next year to universities and colleges to make up for all lost revenue tuition increases create. Based on the figures that the party has made public, it does not appear the proposal will fully compensate the freeze.

OSAP is comprised of two loans: one from the federal government and one from the Ontario government. These loans are interest-free while students are studying. After graduation, each loan carries separate interest rates on outstanding amounts. The provincial portion (the Ontario Student Loan) carries an interest rate of prime + 1%. The party is proposing to pay to have this interest eliminated for all those currently paying loans back. The elimination of interest would only apply to the provincial portion of a student loan, meaning that students with OSAP would still have to pay interest on the federal loan (approximately 60% of OSAP).

GREEN PARTY OF ONTARIO

Announcement: Contained within the party platform It’s Time released on May 25^th

Summary: Fund a tuition freeze for the 2012-13 school year, and index all further increases in tuition to the rate of inflation

Who’s eligible? All non-international students will be eligible for the tuition freeze and continued regulation

How much is it worth? Under the current tuition regulation, average tuition fees are allowed to increase by no more than 5% annually. If this regulation had continued, the average university student would have faced an increase of $330 in 2012-13, while the average college student would have had their fees increase by $120. As a result of the freeze, that increase will not take place. Regulation to the rate of inflation thereafter would likely result in an average of 2% increases annually.

When will it start? The 2012-13 academic year

How will it work? Currently, tuition in Ontario is regulated by a government framework that prohibits institutions from raising their overall average tuition fees by more than 5%. Due to the fact that both colleges and universities rely on increasing tuition revenue to meet rising costs, any freeze is typically met with some increase to per-student funding from the government. We estimate that approximately $150 million in additional funds would need to be provided to universities and colleges to make up for all lost revenue tuition increases create. This is what the party means when they promise to “freeze tuition while maintaining university and college budgets.” It is unclear whether the inflationary tuition increases past 2012-13 will be accompanied with increased operating funding for institutions.

-Sam Andrey and Chris Martin
Executive Director and Director of Research

As was widely reported last week, Statistics Canada’s student summer employment numbers are in, and they aren’t good. Despite predictions that student summer employment would be improved from last year, the final report indicated that the average student unemployment actually rose to 17.2 per cent, a slight increase from the 16.9 per cent student summer unemployment rate reported for 2010. Older students continue to fare better with unemployment rates for 17-to-19 year olds and 20-to-24 year olds at 16.4 per cent and 10.3 per cent respectively, yet both significantly eclipse the overall population’s rate of 7.3 per cent.

This disappointing jobs situation is not exclusive to Canada. Many peer jurisdictions throughout the OECD are experiencing job crises, with exploding youth unemployment rates that eclipse Canada’s substantially. Across the globe, it is estimated that young people are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as their older peers with 81 million youth out of work. The youth unemployment rate has topped 40 per cent in Spain and Italy and is still climbing in many countries. As such, commentators on student summer unemployment would do well to note that it is an issue of global reach and complex roots. There is no simple, inexpensive solution, which is poor consolation to students who were unable to find a job this summer. In Canada, the greatest numbers of these students are in Ontario.

When broken down by province, Ontario had the one of the highest student summer unemployment rates in 2010. The increase in the average student unemployment rate in 2011 appears to have been driven by large increases in Newfoundland & Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia. Ontario’s student summer unemployment rate increased by 0.9 per cent from 17.3 to 18.2 per cent. This seems small in comparison to Newfoundland & Labrador’s astonishing 4.2 per cent rise, Alberta’s 2.9 per cent rise or BC’s 3.1 per cent rise.

Click to view larger version

What should not be lost is that unemployment rates are entirely independent of the size of the population in question. While Ontario’s unemployment rate increased moderately in comparison to Newfoundland for example, the size of Ontario’s student population means that Ontario’s 0.9 per cent increase in student unemployment resulted in nearly eight times more unemployed students than Newfoundland’s 4.2 per cent increase. Approximately 9,400 more students between the age of 15 and 24 were unemployed in Ontario this summer, representing the largest increase in the country. This is 9,400 students who are expected by OSAP to generate income over the summer; 9,400 students who depend on summer income to help pay tuition by payment deadlines often prior to OSAP release dates; 9,400 students who will have to try and rely more on family income, private bank loans and other non-employment sources of revenue to fund their education.

For students fortunate enough to find a summer job in 2011, the average number of hours worked per week remained virtually unchanged from 2010; there was a negligible increase from 23.7 hours per week (the lowest recorded figure since 1977) in 2010 to 24 hours per week in 2011. This indicates that full-time employment has remained difficult to attain for a substantial number of students.

While Ontario’s summer student employment numbers may sound like a lot of bad news, it could have been much worse. Both the provincial and federal government have maintained important incentive programs for employers to hire students throughout the recession. Earlier this summer, we highlighted Employment Ontario’s summer job program as an excellent example. In 2010, it is estimated that this program helped over 130,000 students find work. Though Ontario may have not kept up with demand for student summer jobs, it is clear that without government intervention, many more students would have been unemployed this past summer.

For obvious reasons, students hope that the next government continues to support important employment incentive programs while investing further in student summer jobs. My take-away from the survey results is that the need for further action is growing by the thousands.

-Chris Martin
Director of Research

Reposted from ItsYourVote.ca

Over 280,000 college and university students across Ontario have united for the 2011 provincial election. Of the various issues highlighted, one prominent issue amongst both student groups is that of mobility. For nearly a decade the number of post-secondary students transferring from one institution to another has increased. In the student platform, Our Vote Our Future, the College Student Alliance (CSA) and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) have asked all provincial parties to create incentives to reduce barriers to credit transfer and expand the number of pathways for transition between institutions.

When discussing barriers to accessing post-secondary education, the amount of tuition a student must pay is often seen as one of the main obstacles. While this is certainly true for many students, sometimes the process of paying tuition is just as m auch of a barrier for students as the amount of tuition itself.

Natalie Cockburn (OUSA VP Finance and Waterloo VP Education) recently wrote a blog post looking at different models that institutions use to calculate tuition fees, including flatfee and per credit tuition. Beyond fee calculation models, tuition payment deadlines and deferment policies can also pose a significant burden to students. Most universities opt for one of three models:

• tuition is due in full before the start of first term or sometime in September (11 of 20 universities);
• tuition is due before the start of each term (6 of 20 universities); or
• a minimum payment is due in the summer and the balance is due later (3 of 20 universities).

When tuition is due in full or in part by August or September, funding gaps are created for students who rely on scholarships, government financial assistance, and part-time work to fund their education.

Tuition payment schedules don’t match up with how families save for post-secondary education. OUSA believes that all students should be offered the option to defer half of their tuition fees until January and that this deferral must be free of charge. This would align tuition payment schedules more closely to how most individuals and households manage their cash flows. It would also put Ontario back in line with the rest of the country. In a review of the processes used at 30 Canadian universities in the nine other provinces, OUSA could not find a single institution that did not charge tuition each term.

Simply put, lower-income families and students find small payments spread out over a period of time more manageable than lump sum payments required up front. Ideally, students would be able to pay their tuition in monthly or bi-weekly installments. Although the desire to invest in post-secondary education may be there, it isn’t always realistic for students and their families to be able to forego a large lump sum of money at once. Adjusting tuition payment schedules so that tuition is due at the start of each term could make the sticker shock of tuition less daunting, especially for low-income students who may be questioning whether they can afford a post-secondary education.

It is counter-intuitive that students who cannot afford to pay their tuition up-front be charged a fee or interest to defer their tuition payments, yet this is the case at more than half of institutions. Students at Lakehead are charged $82 to pay their tuition in two installments (September and January), while students at Ryerson are charged a $70 deferral fee. Students should not be penalized because tuition payment schedules don’t match up with how much cash the student has at the moment. In particular, OUSA believes that students receiving OSAP should not be further burdened by extra paperwork or fees to defer their payment. Some universities allow students receiving OSAP to defer their tuition automatically and without charging a deferral fee. For example, at Queen’s students receiving OSAP have the portion of their tuition covered by OSAP automatically deferred, while out-of-province students receiving financial aid need to submit documentation to defer their tuition. Queen’s students receiving funds from specific external sources need to fill out an Alternate Payment Arrangement form to delay paying their tuition fees for the full year to September 30^th instead of September 1^st. Several other institutions have similar processes in place (such as “promissory notes”), including UOIT and Waterloo. However at universities such as McMaster, OSAP students must pay a $35 fee just to defer payment until OSAP is received and then must pay interest on any outstanding amount.

Expectations regarding required documentation need to be clearly communicated to students to avoid burdening students with added stress over whether their application to defer will be accepted. Also at the very least, the government must ensure that institutions have processes in place that align with their release of OSAP that do not require the most financially-vulnerable students to pay additional and unnecessary fees.

Another issue is late payment policies and fees. Post-secondary institutions charge late fees that vary from about $35 (McMaster) to $150 (Queen’s). This year Queen’s implemented further sanctions against students who register late. Queen’s students who do not pay in full by September 1 or submit an Alternate Payment Arrangement form will not have their student cards validated. This can prevent students from borrowing materials from the university library system, using Kingston Transit for free through the “Bus-It” program, and accessing the equipment and services available at the Athletics and Recreation Centre (ARC), even though fees that cover “Bus-It” and the ARC aren’t due until September 30. There are many reasons a student may pay their tuition late, beyond simply forgetting to do so. Low-income students are particularly burdened by the extra paperwork and time required to balance private loans, government financial assistance, and part-time jobs. It can also be humiliating for students to approach their institution’s registration office to say that they can’t afford to pay on time. When tuition deferral costs even more money, students may scramble up until the last minute to try to put together the funds on their own and avoid the fees and paperwork associated with requesting to defer their tuition.

Although the amount of tuition is often a barrier to accessing post-secondary education, it’s important to also critically assess the impact of tuition payment schedules and processes. As the next government reviews the current tuition framework, OUSA asks that regulations be added such all students should be able to pay their tuition at the start of each term, rather than paying a lump sum up-front, and should not be charged for delaying each term’s payment until financial aid is released.

-Mira Dineen
Academic Affairs Commissioner
The Alma Mater Society, Queen’s University

Re-posted from It’sYourVote.ca

In anticipation of the October 6^th provincial election, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) and the College Student Alliance (CSA) have jointly released a student platform, Our Vote, Our Future, to articulate the critical issues for students in this election. The platform addresses everything from deferred maintenance, to credit transfer, to tuition policy.

Tuition policy is one of the most critical election issues for college and university students. With respect to tuition, OUSA and the CSA are strongly recommending that all parties commit to making tuition more affordable for Ontario students and families. There are both economic and accessibility arguments for immediately tackling tuition fees.

Ontario is still recovering from the recent recession. Due to the fact that seventy per cent of new jobs will require a post-secondary education, it is imperative that all willing and qualified students are able to access an affordable post-secondary education. However, there is substantial evidence that the current level of tuition in Ontario creates barriers to a college or university education for many individuals. Over the last two decades, average tuition for undergraduate students has more than tripled in constant dollars. The average student paid $6,307 in 2010, making Ontario the most expensive province in which to attend university. Average college tuition has increased to $2,300 during this timeframe, and textbook and living expenses have risen as well. Students are by and large struggling to pay these rising costs. The incidence of undergraduate debt rose from 56% to 64% over the last decade, with the average indebted graduate owing over $25,000.

The cost of education and accessibility go hand-in-hand. According to the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 40% of college students who exit their program prior to completion do so because of insufficient funds. Underrepresented groups, particularly low-income, Aboriginal, rural and northern students are those affected the most by high fees. These students are most likely to go into debt to finance their post-secondary studies, yet far more likely to be price sensitive and debt averse. Almost 40% of individuals who never attended higher education listed finances as a barrier to participation. Several studies have concluded that tuition increases have a moderate impact on post-secondary participation in low-income students. The argument that increases in financial assistance has offset rising tuition is undermined by the fact that need-based aid has not kept pace with tuition. In fact, the average need-based aid package has increased by just $650 since 1993, in the same time that tuition has increased by $3,000.

According to a 2011 poll, affordability of higher education came in second to only quality of healthcare as the issue that most concerns Ontarians, ranking above unemployment and tax reduction. Tuition is obviously an important issue for students, but as polls and conversations across the province indicate, progressive and fair tuition policy is also important to Ontarians as a whole. This is why students have been keen to hear how the different parties plan to tackle tuition fees. The Ontario Liberal Party has proposed a significant reduction in tuition for dependent undergraduate students whose annual family income is below $160,000 and also committed to continuing to regulate tuition increases. The Green Party of Ontario has proposed freezing tuition for the 2012/13 academic year and subsequently indexing tuition increases to inflation. The Ontario PC Party and Ontario New Democrat Party have yet to comment on tuition policy.

Affordable tuition is the key to maintaining an accessible post-secondary education system and building an economically prosperous, inclusive and equitable Ontario. All the parties vying to form government on October 6^th would do well to remember that post-secondary tuition is an issue that does not just affect students, but also has broader implications for the economy and Ontario families.

-Alicia Ali
Vice President (Education)
McMaster Students Union

Last week, Statistics Canada released a report on university completion in relation to parents’ education level. The fact that students whose parents did not attend post-secondary are less likely to participate in post-secondary education themselves (particularly university) is widely known and documented. This recent report took the important step of asking the question of whether this participation gap has changed over time. This new report has highlighted that between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of people with a university degree aged 25 to 39 whose parents did not complete university almost doubled, from 12 per cent to 23 per cent. This is a faster rate of growth than those whose parents did complete university (45 per cent to 56 per cent), indicating that the attainment gap has narrowed.

Essentially, people whose parents completed university are now 2.4 times more likely to complete university than those without, compared to 3.7 times in 1986. Other important findings include an observation that the university degree attainment among women has led this increase and evidence that that parental education tends not to correlate to degree attainment of children of immigrants.

While this data is in many ways a good news story, Ontarians should not conclude that the access gap has disappeared for first generation families in Ontario.

First, participation in post-secondary education is a different metric than attainment. Participation captures all students who are currently attending university or post-secondary education, while attainment only captures those who successfully complete their credential. Previous data from Statistics Canada had suggested that over the past twenty years overall post-secondary participation rates for students whose parents have no education beyond a high school diploma did not change considerably. As you can see, the significant gap between these students and those whose parents attended post-secondary has not narrowed appreciably.

(Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2009)

Additionally, despite improvement over the last few decades, the study notes that a significant attainment gap still exists between first generation students and those whose parents hold a university credential. In 2009 only 23 per cent of Canadians aged 25-39 whose parents did not attend university had attained a degree, compared with nearly 56 per cent attainment for those whose parents had at least one degree. While progress has been made, I think the celebration should be put on hold while the attainment difference between the two groups is still over 200%.

Furthermore, previous studies have indicated that the first generation participation gap in Ontario is larger than in the other nine Canadian provinces. In Ontario, 54 per cent of non-first generation youth enter university, compared to only 26 per cent of first generation youth: a gap of 28 per cent. This gap exists despite the fact that Ontario has one of the highest degree attainment rates in the country.

In other words, not only is the first generation participation gap still large and concerning, but Ontario has the furthest to go in closing the access gap. While the progress made in addressing degree attainment should be lauded, the findings of this report should not cause anyone to think that barriers for first generation students have been overcome. These students often face a combination of financial, motivational and informational barriers, which conflate to create an access gap that shows itself through both university attainment and participation.

As the fall election unfolds, students are looking to all the parties to outline a vision for making university more accessible, including for those whose families have never attended.

-Chris Martin
Director of Research

On behalf of the College Student Alliance and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, we encourage you to visit itsyourvote.ca, the online home of our campaign to make post-secondary education a key issue in the upcoming provincial election on October 6^th. We’re hoping that this portal will enable students to get educated on the issues, informed about the party platforms and motivated to vote on Election Day for a more accessible, affordable, high quality and mobile post-secondary education system.

We’re doing this because it’s necessary. Students were not the only Ontarians to neglect their democratic right in the last provincial election in 2007. Overall voter turnout hit an all time low of 53 per cent. We find this particularly disappointing given the fact that we know people under the age of 25 vote at half the rate of people over the age of 55. Without a sea change in student participation in elections, the potential of the student vote and its impact on our issues will remain untapped. The overall number of students who did not vote in the last provincial election would have been enough to change the results in 67 of the 107 ridings across Ontario: over half the legislature. Of the 34 ridings with a main college or university campus in 2007, 26 had student populations that eclipsed the margin of victory.

This all indicates that no matter where students vote, we have the power to shape the future legislature.

There are a myriad of reasons why this argument has not hit home to date, one of which is a perceived irrelevance of government to the day-to-day lives of students. This perception couldn’t be further from the truth. Post-secondary education is a responsibility of the provincial government; when it is places as a high priority, Ontario benefits both economically and socially. For example, In addition to the fact that 70 per cent of all future jobs will require post-secondary education, we know that half of the Ontario population with a post-secondary credential collectively pays about three quarters of the income tax. In addition, those with a post-secondary credential are more likely to be employed, live longer, be healthier, commit fewer crimes, donate to charity, volunteer and vote.

The CSA and OUSA have put together a comprehensive platform highlighting ways the next government could improve the affordability, accessibility, quality and mobility of higher education. If you check out the platform page, you’ll be able to compare the offerings of the official parties with our platform. We encourage you to weigh this comparison with your own priorities and come to your own conclusion on who would be best to lead Ontario in the coming years.

We hope you enjoy the site and encourage you to return over the course of the campaign for commentary and new information on why post-secondary education should matter when you cast your ballot on October 6^th.

It’s your vote.

-Brian Costantini
President, College Student Alliance

-Sean Madden
President, Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance

Today, the Liberal Party of Ontario announced that, if re-elected, they will double the length of training requirements for elementary and secondary school teachers by amending the Ontario College of Teachers Act. This initiative is intended to improve teaching quality and student success by increasing the time teachers spend training and receiving professional development. The recent announcement highlighted that Ontario’s teacher training requirements are less time intensive than peer-jurisdictions, citing Finland, Japan and Singapore as examples of countries which have longer teacher training and also higher standardized test scores. Additionally, the initiative will reduce the number of teachers graduating in a single year from 9,000 to 4,500, potentially easing current job market saturation.

Students have long emphasized the importance of teaching quality at all levels of education; doubling the training requirements for elementary and second teachers helps support this objective. The Ontario government’s recent Putting Students First plan also committed to developing programs and incentives to improve teaching quality and reward excellence at the post-secondary level, and we look forward to further details as the plan unfolds.

Last year, OUSA released a holistic access strategy that emphasized the important role the elementary and secondary school system plays in shaping student preparation and attitudes towards post-secondary education. Students hope that enhanced teacher training requirements will also equip teachers with the tools to better communicate with students about post-secondary education.

One unanswered question left by the announcement is how the affordability of teacher training will be maintained in the new two-year system, given that students’ costs in tuition and living costs will increase. In addition it is unclear exactly how the additional year will be divided between coursework and practical experience. It remains to be seen what the government’s proposed next steps on tuition and student aid are, which will hopefully be clarified in the coming days.

Overall however, this measure could be an important step in raising the quality of teaching in Ontario. A key next step in fulfilling the promise of Putting Students First is addressing the void in professional development and training for university instructors, who are currently required to complete no instruction in teaching methods prior to entering the classroom.

-Natalie Cockburn
Vice President Finance, OUSA
Vice President Education, Federation of Students at the University of Waterloo

In just a week I will be entering my fourth year as a student at Queen’s University. Fourth year is lauded as the year in which students can finally sink their teeth into critical thinking. They challenge professors in seminars, take advantage of smaller classes to have true discussion, and begin to mold their own hypotheses. Though I’m excited to finally critically engage with course material, I can’t help but wonder why it wasn’t possible earlier in my education. Thus far, my classroom experience can best be characterized as a transfer of information from professor to student. This approach is counterintuitive from a critical thinking perspective, as it creates a disincentive for students to challenge classroom material.

The concept of conflict in the classroom is a topic that Parker Palmer, an academic at the Centre for Courage and Renewal, talks about quite frequently. In his article “Good Teaching”, Palmer writes about the concept of conflict in a consensual classroom. A consensual classroom is defined as a classroom that expects conflict to occur. Proponents of this teaching method argue that conflict can lead to a truer illumination of knowledge than the traditional lecture. Palmer writes in his article,

“A consensual classroom assumes that truth requires many views and voices, much speaking and listening, a high tolerance for ambiguity in the midst of a tenacious community. Consensual truth is not the outcome of majority vote. It is a continuing revelation that comes as we air our differences in public, pay special heed to those who dissent, and seek deeper insight…”

I can honestly say that in my three years in university, I have not experienced a classroom where dissenting opinions and a robust conversation have occurred. Now, this isn’t necessarily the fault of the professor. Large class sizes, limited time together and the sheer volume of material that must be covered all inhibit the culture of a consensual classroom. However, these obstacles should not prohibit discussion and debate from permeating all levels of education, as it does currently. I should not have to wait until fourth year to experience a classroom that encourages critical engagement.

As students we move from a high school model where asking questions is often encouraged to a university model where the first few years of our university education are spent memorizing textbooks and theories. Students tend to believe that they are so stifled under the “burden” of learning that they are unable to stop and ask “why?”

In Taking Stock, Dr. Joy Mighty talks about how good teachers introduce new concepts to students. After explaining the substance of the concept, the professor will show the student how it was discovered. The next and final step is to challenge the concept and only through the introduction of opposing theories does the student begin to understand the concept in a full context. In the traditional lecture, this doesn’t occur. For some reason, we have opted for a model where we spend whole credit courses during the first first three years of university explaining, with only one year dedicated challenging what we’ve learned.

Educators must focus less on viewing the undergraduate experience as wedded to simple information transfer. We need to structure our system so that students can be engaged throughout the process. This means shifting our expectations and our practices to accommodate a model that we are, to date, uncomfortable with. This journey into new models of learning is starting to occur on small scales across universities. At Queen’s we have professors who feature their normal lecture content online and use class time to provoke conversations and study new models. We have professors who break their classroom time into a lecture format that follows Dr. Mighty’s concept of deep learning, where a concept is presented, derived, and then challenged. Throughout Ontario there are professors who are exploring new ways of learning and it falls on our entire system to take a note out of Dr. Palmer’s playbook and look to these small experiments. We might find something that works – and engages us.

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

It must be true that times flies when you’re having fun because we both cannot believe we’re already bidding farewell to OUSA and heading back to school. Both of us had the unique opportunity to spend four months delving into issues that are extremely relevant, not just to students but to all Ontarians. Living and breathing policy and research – from the number crunching to the lengthy policy manuals – has allowed us to fully appreciate the amount of detail that goes into forming policy positions and just how complex the policy environment is.

Our time at OUSA forced us to be creative in our framing of policy questions and to be open-minded in our discussions of solutions. Not only has the work itself been incredibly rewarding, but it has also allowed us to impress our friends outside the OUSA office with our knowledge of tuition fee policy details and the many acronyms associated with accountability.  All joking aside, there is something to be said for working in a position where you contribute to something that will matter long after you’ve left your post.

We’ve both had a blast working with students to make Ontario’s postsecondary education system more affordable, accessible, accountable and high quality. We look forward to keeping in touch as proud OUSA alum!

Cheers,
Chris & Kristen