OUSA

It is difficult to overstate the importance of effective teaching to student success. A student’s confidence, passion and effort can all be awoken by a lecturer’s ability to engage those students in a way that recognizes their learning styles. Those learning styles are by no means a constant from one generation of students to another, and a lecturer at the front of a classroom is often looking at an audience very different from the one they were a part of during their education.

The provincial government’s $25 million dollar commitment to creating Ontario Research Chairs in 2005 was an acknowledgement of the importance of research excellence to the province, but also of the ability of those chairs to inspire and lead their peers in that excellence. The time has come to similarly acknowledge the important innovations and practices that leading professors are bringing to the discipline of teaching; both for its contribution to student success, and through that the province, but also for their ability to inspire their peers.

Instituting a teaching chair program would allow leaders in educational theory and innovation, along with those who practice effective teaching within their own disciplines, to become ambassadors of quality teaching throughout the sector. Freeing select teachers from their duties around some types of research and publishing would allow those with a passion for dynamic instruction to test, study and share the results of those efforts with their peers. This would certainly require some changes to the tenure and promotion processes on campuses, but these would be important changes that could recognize and reward teaching excellence in the same way we do now for research excellence.

OUSA has been advocating for a teaching chair program, modeled on a system similar to that in place for research chairs. The grants available for those selected to a teaching chair would be sufficient incentive for universities to create spaces for them to test and advance pedagogy. For the province this would ideally result in the same innovations in quality that make us a leader in research. For universities and students we would see a culture in university administration that respects and appreciates the act of teaching on the same level that we view, and reward, publishing and research among faculty. For the government, they would be sending a clear message that teaching quality is important and our faculty will be rewarded for being some of the best teachers in the world.

Research chairs have contributed to an existing culture that views practical innovation as a defining and rewarded feature of universities. The billions in economic benefits of university based research are apparent, but it is critical to consider the importance of engaging those university students who will be the stewards of Ontario’s economic future. Teaching chairs will allow the post-secondary system to adapt to its students’ changing learning needs and to best prepare this crucial generation to be flexible, critical thinkers who have engaged in their respective courses of studies and who are committed to being life-long learners.

-Sean Madden
OUSA President

More with less is a rhetoric heard too often in universities in my opinion. This past week the Economist featured an interesting article entitled “How to make college cheaper.” Mr. Schumpter’s piece focuses on a report conducted in Oklahoma on American post-secondary institutions’ growing tuition rates and how to excise bloat from their operating budgets. To start, let me clarify that the article, and the research it is based on, are about the American university system. However, as I read through the article the recommendations presented resonated shockingly close to home.

Mr. Fried, the Oklahoman researcher, shunned perhaps more obvious suggestions for cost-saving measures in the American system, such as slashing athletic programs or costs of bed-and-board. Instead, his study recommended some solutions that seem similar to how our Ontario post-secondary system is progressing, including:
- Increasing the student-to-teacher ratio
- Eliminating or consolidating courses and programs that are not populous
- Reducing administrative bloat
Since I have come to Queen’s in 2008, class sizes have increased and the university has consolidated or eliminated programs that attract fewer students. There is currently a push, stemming from the provincial government, to slow salary growth in public institutions. Some administrations have been finding room in their budgets by reducing student services and downloading their costs to students through ancillary or user fees.

Speaking as a student I am fundamentally opposed to the above blunt instruments to reduce costs. Increasing class sizes and reducing student face time with faculty has been a growing trend in Ontario for several years. Justifications range from a lack of funding to emerging technology but, put simply, fewer faculty per student means less personal expertise shared between student and teacher. The correlation is not a significant reach. While more must be done to improve quality inside the classroom, the importance of class size in creating an engaging and active learning space for students cannot be overlooked.

Secondly, while I understand the logic of cutting less populous programs, we must keep in mind that innovation and exploratory learning are at the heart of our learning institutions; when we reduce availability in favour of streamlined course selection we limit our students’ potential to grow. Finally, while some areas of administration have become ‘bloated,’ there is an important distinction between administrative bloat and the administration of student services. While the salaries of university presidents and vice-presidents continue to grow well above inflation, one does not have to search for long to find stories of student service shortages. Wait times at the average institution are atrocious and by turning students away from fundamental services like health, counselling, centres for teaching and learning, or disability services, universities are failing to build an environment conducive to student success.

Despite my frustrations at many cost-reduction arguments seeming to represent an indirect cost to our quality of education, there are two recommendations discussed in Mr. Schumpter’s article that would be very interesting to explore:
- Switch to a three-year degree program as opposed to a four year program
- Make research completely publically funded; undergraduates should pay for teaching not researching
Over a month ago I had a very interesting conversation with several faculty and administrators about the viability of a three-year program at Queen’s that operated on the European schedule in which students do not have a four month summer break, but instead have shorter, more numerous, holidays and stay enrolled over the course of the summer. This would fundamentally change our system and would change our culture from a four-year commitment to a three-year investment. Our conversation ranged from the challenges (students wouldn’t be able to earn in the summer, necessitating changes to OSAP; faculty would have to adjust research schedules; etc.) to benefits (money is saved on living costs such as rent and utilities; students retain more of their teaching; etc.), but the overwhelming sentiment was that it would be too much of a change to our university culture.
And the second recommendation also seems logical. Many students appreciate the research intensive culture of the undergraduate university, yet most students sign their tuition cheques to be taught by experts, not by textbooks. Speaking personally I have had classes taught by engaging, intelligent personalities, and I have had courses taught by professors whose only real interest is their research – I prefer the former. Teaching quality is the founding pillar of our post-secondary education system. This is not to say that research does not play a vital function in our institutions and our province, but supporting that function should be a primarily public goal. Of course a shift in which students only subsidize the teaching function of the institution would be incredibly expense for government and is simply unrealistic in the current climate. However, a shift in the culture of teaching would be beneficial. Professors should be expected to teach, to hone their craft, and to enhance the learning environment of their institutions. Changes to faculty hiring, reward and incentive structures must change to reflect this changing landscape.

Unfortunately, my experience has led me to believe that Mr. Schumpter’s article and the recommendations proposed will favour the former and not the latter subset of suggestions. Indeed, at Queen’s we’ve even lost the pretence that we should do ‘more with less’, now giving preference to the more honest ‘less with less’ mantra.

Mr. Schumpter got it right when he said that “the cost of tuition cannot forever rise faster than students’ ability to pay.” However, the solution is not just that costs must go down. Government funding on a per-student basis cannot continue to decline in real dollars if we are going to preserve access and quality. Post-secondary education is simply too important to the future economic and social wealth of the province to let either slip away. As articulated in a recent blog, tuition increases are a choice not a necessity. As institutions embark on another round of cost cutting and the provincial government mulls its options for a new tuition framework, here’s hoping that we can find a way to protect the critical investment in human capital that universities provide.

-Kieran Slobodin
VP University Affairs
Alma Mater Society, Queen’s University

Though the Labour Force Survey results from Statistics Canada indicating final summer employment numbers have not been released yet, some early warning signs paint a mixed image of student employment in Ontario. On the one hand, employment has been on the rise for three consecutive months, with employment gains being driven by Alberta and Ontario. Additionally, the June national student summer employment rate has remained largely unchanged in comparison to 2010, and has risen 4.2 per cent since the worst year on record in 2009.

While these numbers may serve a tenuous indication that student summer employment in Ontario hasn’t gotten worse, the status quo is certainly not an acceptable target. Last year, student summer unemployment in Ontario was the highest in the country, sitting at 17.5 per cent. More recent data indicates that this is likely still the case; a student survey commissioned by BMO has indicated that only 30 per cent of Ontario students have secured full-time employment, compared with 53 per cent in western Canada.

The implications of student summer unemployment are significant, affecting more than simply student personal income. The Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) expects that all students (as well as spouses of students) work during the pre-study period. The very minimum a student is expected to contribute is calculated by combining the average number of weekly work hours in Ontario (30) by the current minimum wage ($10.25) and the number of weeks in the pre-study period less taxes and a small living allowance. For a student living at home for sixteen weeks before heading to university, the minimum expected employment earnings contribution is approximately $2,850. This requirement means that some students who are not able to work near-full-time hours throughout the summer are punished by being eligible for less financial assistance to help compensate. The last Ontario Student Survey in 2009 asked students how much they were able to save over the summer and the average was only $1,200, while OSAP students managed just $800.

Given that Ontario educates the largest proportion of Canadian university students (43 per cent) and has the highest average tuition ($6,307 in 2010-11), it is more imperative than ever that the province continues to invest in student employment opportunities. Additionally, financial aid systems must be changed to take into account the realities of the student labour market; students who are not fortunate enough to find a job in a tough labour market for youth must not be punished for a circumstance that is largely out of their control.

-Chris Martin
Director of Research

Last Friday, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities released a memorandum to Ontario universities clarifying how the government’s ancillary fee regulations apply to new online applications, which is welcome news to university students across Ontario.

We blogged last year in November and January about potential violations of the ancillary fee regulations at two Ontario universities. After further investigation at our other campuses indicated violations were likely more widespread, former OUSA President Meaghan Coker wrote in February to the Honourable John Milloy, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In the letter, she detailed our concerns regarding the ancillary fee regulations and asked for a memorandum to be sent to all Ontario universities clarifying the current regulations and reminding institutions of their important role in ensuring compliance with the provisions.

The fees in question are for online products that faculty members require students to purchase for online assignments, tests and examinations that constitute a portion of the student’s final grade. These products, including applications such as Aplia, Lyrnyx, Mastering Chemistry, MyCanadianCompLab and Wiley Plus, often expire after the course or academic year is complete.

The Ministry’s memorandum outlined that fees charged for the administration of assignments, tests and examinations for credit courses fall into the category of tuition-related ancillary fees, which are levied to cover the costs of items normally paid for out of operating revenue. Tuition-related ancillary fees have been disallowed by the ancillary fee regulations since September 1, 1991. Though the emergence of online learning creates exciting new possibilities for teaching, learning and student success, the Ministry has thankfully clarified that rules put in place to prevent unfair fees still apply to this new frontier.

Students understand that many of the violations uncovered by students over the past several months have been inadvertent, stemming largely from a misunderstanding of regulations rather than a conscious attempt to undermine them. That is why we are encouraged by the government’s suggestion to share the clarifications and ancillary fee regulations with all academic departments and faculties.

Additionally, the ancillary fee regulations found in the Ontario Operating Funds Distribution Manual have not been significantly changed since the 1990s, well before the widespread integration of online tools into classrooms. We want to be clear that we are not suggesting these online applications should be banned on campuses. However, some 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 though 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.

The regulations regarding compulsory ancillary fees are of the utmost importance to students. Resting decision-making in the hands of student governments has been a priority for our organization since our inception. These regulations were put in place to prevent universities from shifting operating costs onto students through additional fees. We understand that some additional costs associated with learning materials are allowable if retained by the student. These online access fees, however, represented a downloading of the cost of instruction onto students through additional ancillary fees.

We want to thank Minister Milloy and the Ministry for clarifying this important matter for students. We look forward to continuing to work with institutions and government on how to improve the student experience while ensuring a fair cost sharing model.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director

Do you remember when school was wrapping up at the end of April when there was a surreal surge of patriotism coming out of Ontario universities for the Federal Election? New phenomena such as vote mobs and song parodies emerged from the youth of the province, encouraging their fellow youth to hit the polls on May 2^nd and vote.

With less than three months until October 6^th, when students hit the polls again for the Provincial Election, OUSA and its member schools have a little more time to prepare for this election season. In fact, during this summer and at the OUSA Strategy Conference held last week, we have been working hard on devising campaigns that will effectively target first-time voters, and help students make educated decisions at the polls come vote day.

OUSA will be partnering with the College Student Alliance this fall with the launch of a website which will help students compare the different platforms of the political parties. We will also working on a viral marketing campaign maximizing social media, with each university’s student union putting their own spin on what students want from the election.

Most excitingly about this lead up to the election is that we have seen how certain things worked and did not work for the Federal election, and while we don’t expect to see vote mobs pop up as much as last time, we expect to see even more intuitive and creative displays of democratic excitement this time around.

The other important thing to note is that OUSA is remaining completely non-partisan this election, as it always has been. As such, we will be able to provide to our member schools objective analyses of platforms and promises.

We here at OUSA are excited about this election season, and we hope you are too.

Until we chat again, thanks for reading!

-Patrick Searle
Vice-President University Affairs, University Students’ Council at the University of Western Ontario
Vice-President Administration, Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance

A change to copyright law affects student life significantly. From copying and sharing course material to paying for textbooks and course-packs, copyright tariffs and regulations have a strong bearing on the affordability and quality of higher education. However, while changes to copyright rules have occasionally attracted widespread attention such as Bill C-32, many students are unaware of proposed changes to the copyright rules governing post-secondary institutions.

Post-secondary institutions gain the rights to use and reproduce copyrighted material (works in the public domain and government publications are exempt) through two main processes: through specific agreements with publishers and through intermediary organizations that represent a number of publishers and authors.  In the past, post-secondary institutions in Canada have had an agreement with an intermediary organization Access Copyright (formerly CanCopy) which charged a per-student fee of $3.38 plus $0.10 per page of copied material. This past agreement governed only print materials, for example paper photocopies in course-packs, but not digital materials.

The agreement between universities and colleges and Access Copyright expired in 2010, and currently, Access Copyright is attempting to renegotiate its tariff with institutions. The proposed fee is a significant increase to $45.00 per student, with the elimination of the $0.10 per page charge.

Many institutions have declined to sign onto the new Access Copyright agreement, citing a preference to negotiate separate agreements with publishers. In some ways, this may be more effective as it will lead to more direct payment to the authors and publishers of works.  Currently, Access Copyright is using an interim tariff, while institutions and Access Copyright wait for the new tariff to be heard by the Copyright Board.

Changes to the rules governing copyright at post-secondary institutions are of significant importance to students for a number of reasons:

1) At many institutions, while specific agreements with publishers are paid for through the library budget, Access Copyright tariffs have been paid for exclusively through ancillary student fees. It is likely, then, that students will be asked to pay for an increase in Access Copyright tariffs through an increase in ancillary fees rather than the change being rolled into operating expenditures. This unfairly burdens students with the entire cost of copying agreements, when these agreements benefit not just students, but the institution as a whole. At most institutions, this fee increase will need to be approved by student governments, and many are rightfully concerned about the fairness of such a proposal.

2) Canadian copyright law has a “fair dealing” provision which means that copying a work for “private study, research, criticism or reporting” is exempt from copyright law. A 2004 Supreme Court ruling on copyright stated that there “must be given a large and liberal interpretation [of research] in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained”, and “fair dealing” is not limited to private and non-commercial contexts. What this means is that a large amount of copying that occurs at post-secondary institutions is likely exempt from copyright payment under fair dealing provisions. Currently there are several cases before the Supreme Court that will further clarify the extent to which fair dealing applies to colleges and universities. Until the extent to which “fair dealing” applies to universities and colleges is decided, there remains a great deal of uncertainty as to what students should be paying for through their ancillary fees.

3) The proposed new Access Copyright agreement expands the breadth of copyright rules to the digital world, and is arguably more restrictive than current copyright law. For example, several activities currently allowed under Canadian copyright law fall under new regulation in the proposal, including transmission of a fax to a single recipient, the display of materials on an overhead or projector in the classroom, and the creation of a digital copy by libraries for individuals to use for private study and research, as well as the creation of hyperlinks. Canadian copyright law does not require compensation for these activities, making it difficult for students to accept the need for new regulation (and costs) associated with them.

4) There is no meaningful way of tracking digital copies under the current agreement, and proposed tracking mechanisms could result in privacy concerns, such as e-mail tracking. Until reporting issues can be resolved, and a clear means to distinguish between fair usage and copyrighted usage of digital copies is found, it is virtually impossible to charge a tariff truly reflective of the amount of copyrighted material being shared between and amongst stakeholders in higher education.

Undoubtedly it is important to ensure that creators and owners of materials are adequately compensated for their work.  This happens in many ways, including institution-wide and individual negotiations for copying licenses as well as through negotiations with copyright collectives like Access Copyright. However, there are several issues under the current proposed Access Copyright tariff framework that are deeply concerning to students, including the scope of the tariff, difficulty distinguishing between fair dealing and copyright-governed use of materials, and an absence of realistic reporting mechanisms. As these proceedings move forward to the Copyright Board, students have an active role to play in working with institutions and publishers to ensure that these issues are resolved in a way that is fair to all parties involved.

-Laura Pin
Research Analyst

Early this week our OUSA Steering Committee came together to draft our 2011-2012 Action Plan. The three-day conference involved a review of last year’s Action Plan, a critical SWOT analysis, establishing priorities for advocacy, research and communication, and discussions about engagement in the upcoming provincial election.

For new readers, this is my second year on Steering Committee (last year I was a resource member as the Academic Affairs Commissioner) and therefore my second OUSA Strategic Planning Conference. After my second time around, I have to say that I’m excited. Very excited.

First of all, we have a once-in-a-four-year opportunity: the provincial election. As student leaders, we have a rare opportunity to really push awareness of student priorities and not just have students listen, but our MPPs and fellow Ontarians as well. Further, OUSA has a chance to help define priorities for post-secondary education for the next four years right from the start. With some dedication, strong election efforts, and a little luck, we could drastically impact PSE for the better.

Secondly, I’m excited for the dedication and interest shown by my fellow members. This year we will be tackling a review of some of our biggest policies (Tuition, Quality, Accountability) and have been discussing some projects that will involve comprehensive research in areas we haven’t fully explored before. Additionally, we have set as a priority better integration of delegates at General Assemblies and more comprehensive member school involvement strategies.

Finally, the post-secondary education sector has been getting attention in the public eye. Recent polls show that the public is looking to be engaged by the parties on issues pertaining to education and employment. This was reflected during the federal election when parties talked about education and when students mobbed the media’s attention. The stage is set for an engaging conversation.

The upcoming year should be a good year for OUSA. There will be challenges, there will be changes, but we have the team to meet them head on. We’re looking forward to the new year.

-Kieran Slobodin
AMS VP University Affairs, Queen’s University

Over the past several months, I have been working to gather information to support OUSA’s upcoming policy paper on accountability. I’ve been sifting through data, position papers, and accountability policy over the course of the last two months, and I’m excited to share my perspective as well as some preliminary findings in this post.

In principle, accountability mechanisms in the university sector exist in order to ensure that publicly funded institutions are adhering to public goals and priorities. The question of whether or not institutions should be held to such ends is relatively uncontroversial; virtually every stakeholder agrees that there should be some sort of meaningful accountability mechanism in place. How those mechanisms take shape, however, has been the subject of vigorous debate within the sector.

As far as I’ve been able to gather, there are two questions around which the debate seems to focus. First, for what should universities be held accountable? Universities fill a variety of different roles that differ between and within institutions. Moreover, these roles are valued differently across the sector. The current government, for example, is interested in economic return on its investment and ensuring that students can get jobs after graduation. Faculty associations tend to take a different perspective, placing more emphasis on the development of students as critical thinkers and engaged citizens. Ultimately, the indicators that governments require institutions to track will need to account for this variety of perspectives.

While the first question is theoretical in nature, the second question is more technical. Once the measures of accountability are decided, how are we to hold the universities accountable? In other words, how can we measure a given institution’s progress toward achieving public goals? This question requires us to conceptualize our accountability mechanisms such that they might be meaningfully and significantly measured. This is no small task, in large part because the various mandates of our public universities are enormously complex and not easily quantifiable. For example, how can critical thinking be accurately measured and reported? There are some promising practices in place in peer jurisdictions – for example, the Collegiate Learning Assessment in the US – but no one tool can accurately capture critical thinking in all its complexity.

Nor are labour market outcomes easily quantifiable. As part of the current accountability framework, for example, all universities are required to report seven-year graduation rates, employment rates, and OSAP default rates. These rates are known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The first two of these indicators are tied to performance funding for the institutions. Universities must meet a benchmark of at least 10% below the sector average in order to be eligible for the funding; if eligible, their funding is calculated using a formula that takes both their performance and relative size into account.  However, this fund has been decreasing as a proportion of total operating funding since its inception; in 2010-2011, performance funding comprised 0.7% of total Ministry funding.

Moreover, the current KPIs are meant to show prospective students their chances of finding employment after graduation, but end up painting a misleading picture. While they provide employment statistics both 6 months and two years after graduation, they provide no information about the type of work the graduate is doing, if the graduate is overqualified for this work, nor their salary, three factors which would be of interest to students hoping to evaluate a return on their investment in post-secondary education. As such, there is reason to question the extent to which KPIs serve as effective tools to keep universities accountable for these labour market objectives.

Another tool used to hold universities accountable is dedicated funding, consisting of enveloped funds for particular initiatives. Dedicated funding comprises approximately 15% of total Ministry funding to universities, and funds specific initiatives such as Aboriginal action plans, grants for safety on campus, and grants to support credit transfer infrastructure. Envelopes are structured and dispersed differently (with different reporting requirements), but each is targeted for a specific purpose. This approach has an intuitive appeal: set priorities, and then provide the funds for those priorities to be carried out directly. However, the consequence of partitioning funding is that there is less discretion and flexibility on the part of university boards to react to the unique needs of their institution. Envelope funding, like all measures, cannot be viewed as a panacea to the challenge of university accountability.

Thus far the debate has been limited to the above questions. There is a third question, however, which has been largely glossed over: To whom should universities be held accountable? The answer has been so far assumed: since the public funds universities, universities must be held accountable to the public. The government serves as the public’s representative in this formulation of accountability. But if all those who fund institutions are those to whom institutions must be held accountable – you get what you pay for, so to speak – then there is no reason that institutions should not also be held accountable to their students. Tuition fees have risen exponentially in the last two decades, now comprising upwards of 45% of operating funding. And yet there has been no serious discussion about how universities can be held accountable in equal measure to the public at large and to their students. As the government embarks on re-negotiating its Multi-Year Accountability Agreements and on negotiating new institutional mandate agreements, this paper will hopefully explore different models of accountability in hopes of helpfully engaging in this dialogue.

In sum: there are three questions which should guide sector discussions of accountability. They are:

1. To whom should universities be held accountable?
2. For what should universities be held accountable?
3. How should universities be held accountable for the above?

This paper shall seek to provide a student perspective on each of the three questions in turn.

-Chris Rudnicki
OUSA Research Intern

The past two weeks have seen many significant infrastructure announcements at Ontario universities, funded as part of the provincial government’s Building Togetherplan. The plan calls for $35 billion to be spent over the next three years on infrastructure across the province. Approximately $600 million has been allocated to post-secondary institutions for the purpose of expanding student learning space. Investing in expanded infrastructure and capabilities on our campuses is important, as concerns of crowded and out-dated spaces are very real to students in this era of continuing enrolment growth. Personally exciting to me is what the space means: not only the existence of more classrooms, but also what those classrooms look like and their possibilities for pedagogy and technical integration that is responsive to changing student learning needs.

The importance of investment on our campuses extends beyond new buildings though. It is reassuring to see that the infrastructure plan places a priority on the renewal of existing facilities and asset management. It is my hope that these efforts can begin to address the nearly two billion dollars of accumulated deferred maintenance at our institutions. Currently, institutions only receive a marginal amount of funding for maintenance, resulting in universities often deferring this important work. Between 2007 and 2010, the audited value of deferred maintenance jumped from $1.6 billion to $1.97 billion. A facilities condition index found that “overall, buildings in the university sector are in poor condition.” A staggering 42% of buildings were found to be in poor condition, requiring maintenance.

Since 2005, provincial investments have contributed $26.7 million per year through the facilities renewal program, though that amount was reduced to $17.3 million in 2010. There were also supplementary investments in new capital projects in 2005, 2008 and 2009. Overall, provincial investment in facilities improvement and renewal has totalled over 2 billion dollars over five years. While this funding has helped stymy the tide of further deterioration of our campus facilities, a sustained long-term investment plan is required to adequately address growth in the system. Hopefully, the asset renewal plans required by Building Together will incentivize the funding necessary to maintain Ontario university infrastructure for generations of students to come.

A further hope for Building Together is that the government will open capital funding eligibility to projects that haven’t typically received support in the past, such as student buildings or recreational facilities. Universities rely very heavily on students to fund these infrastructure projects through ancillary fees, a trend which continues to be a point of concern for students. With an average capital ancillary fee of $72 across Ontario universities, students are rightfully questioning why the provincial government chooses not to support student and recreational facilities used by faculty, staff and the broader communities that campuses situate themselves in.

In the final report of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities/Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Long-Term Capital Planning Project, compiled by the Courtyard Group in 2009, it recommended that “funding should be extended to traditional ‘ancillary’ projects which demonstrate significant contribution to student development.” Students couldn’t agree more. With Monday’s announcement of funding for a mixed-use academic and health facility at St. Clair College, we are hopeful that the government has embraced this recommendation.

All told, it is assuring to students that the Building Ontario plan includes post-secondary education as a key component. An intention to tackle both the pedagogical and physical demands of Ontario’s changing and growing student populations demonstrates the importance of the post-secondary education to the Province.

Till next time,

Sean Madden
OUSA President

Conference Delegates

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending and participating in the European Access Network’s annual conference held at the VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The EAN is a non-governmental organization with the singular mission of widening participation in higher education for those who are currently underrepresented. The Network is made up of institutional and jurisdictional representatives from Europe, North America and several other parts of the world who either research, fund or work directly on access initiatives. This year’s conference, entitled ‘Student Diversity in Higher Education: Conflicting Realities,’ dealt with many facets of the global access issue, with a variety of perspectives on closing participation gaps shared amongst the delegates. The conference offered me some key insights on OUSA’s work on access over the past few years through Breaking Barriers and our annual Blue Chair Campaign.

There were a number of memorable conference sessions for me. One of the first sessions was facilitated by a Vice-Chancellor in the United Kingdom on the regressive changes to the country’s tuition and financial aid policies. Next up was a session on tremendous progress that some of California’s prestigious 4-year universities have made in supporting transfer students from community colleges, both in terms growing the number of transfer students and also in their academic success rates, which have surpassed non-transfer students in many cases. I also had the pleasure of speaking at length with Dr. Brenda Dann-Messier, the Assistant Secretary to the US Department of Education in the Obama administration, on the supports that underrepresented students need in secondary schools and their new ‘cradle to career’ strategy. Finally, the President of the Lumina Foundation for Education in the US delivered an inspiring call to action to all countries to redouble efforts to protect and enhance accessibility of higher education as public budgets around the world tighten.

While the conference proceedings itself were invaluable, the most exciting part of the week was the global student forum. In attendance were representatives from the United States Student Association and the European Students’ Union, in addition to students from underrepresented groups from around the world ranging from Belgium to Suriname. Hearing their stories was truly a moving and motivating experience. Students from across the world shared their stories and experiences accessing higher education. One woman from Tanzania was discouraged from attending post-secondary due to her gender and was able to change her life when she accessed a computer –and information on scholarships – for the first time. A man from inner city St. Louis lived on the streets for years but attended higher education after promising his dying grandfather that he would go back to university as a mature student. Another brilliant young man from Toronto has been on his own since age 15 and is still finishing his high school diploma because he had to take time off school to work and support himself, but plans to study engineering at the University of Toronto as soon as he can.

While the unique challenges and perspectives from each student and country were interesting, I was struck most by the similarity of student experiences and challenges with accessing education are worldwide. Students from across the world spoke of the need to feel supported early on in school; they spoke of the need for clear information on costs and benefits; they spoke of the need to have an understandable and accessible financial aid system; they spoke of the need for a flexible education system that allows students to change their path; they spoke of the challenges that first generation students face the need for role models and additional encouragement.  Ultimately, they all spoke of the need for a coordinated and holistic approach to access that leaves no student behind.

It can be easy to let conversation on accessibility focus on the numbers and the policy changes that are needed, rather than on the students themselves. I am walking away from this forum with a renewed respect for letting individual students’ stories shine through.

I also obtained an appreciation of where Canada and Ontario stand in a global perspective. Many of the conference’s delegates spoke admiringly of Canada’s public education system and high attainment rate. Hearing stories of the recruitment practices of degree mills and two-tiered primary school systems made me reflect on the somewhat advantageous position that Ontarians are in. That notwithstanding, it was also obvious that we are woefully behind in other areas. Many other jurisdictions utilize student mobility between education pathways through credit transfer, bridging programs and open access initiatives to enhance university participation for those without the necessary entrance requirements – something that Ontario has talked about for a long time, but made relatively little progress on.  There are also countless examples of innovative community- and school-based programs designed to influence underrepresented students’ course selection and performance. As Ontario embarks on designing new programming to help with the transition from secondary to post-secondary education, we would be wise to look to our neighbouring jurisdictions for many promising best practices.

I want to thank the European Access Network for inviting and bringing OUSA to a wonderful forum and allowing us to participate so fully. This has been a fantastic opportunity for OUSA and I can’t wait to share all that I’ve learned back here in Ontario. The ability to interact with other student organizations was also a valuable opportunity to share perspectives and information – something that we can hopefully continue to do more of as the EAN builds a more formal student network. In particular, as student organizations become more organized in places like Asia and Africa, it will be an exciting opportunity to work together and share best practices to influence public policy and debate around the world.

Ontario has a lot to be proud of, but closing participation gaps and supporting all students’ pursuit of higher education is going to require us to take our efforts at home to the next level. Participating in forums like the EAN ensures that a global perspective informs these efforts as we all work to enhance equality through higher education.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director