University Affairs

It was a bit of a last hurrah as Paul Cappon and his staff at the Canadian Council on Learning presented a report on lifelong learning to a group of MPs and senators yesterday in Ottawa. The council was told in early January that the federal government would be ending its support of the agency as of today, March 31.

The CCL has always had a complicated existence since it was created in 2004 by the former Liberal government. The current government never seemed to really embrace the organization and many provinces were wary of a national agency reporting on an area of provincial jurisdiction.

But the agency has provided much food for thought, including this current report, Taking Stock: Lifelong Learning in Canada 2005–2010. Dr. Cappon said of the report:

We will give [MPs and senators] some good news, but we will also be frank about the bad news, including the fact that while Canada has no coherent national approach to lifelong learning, our international competitors either do – or they are working seriously to create one. And that means that as we stand still, we are losing ground.

The report notes that Canada has much going for it in terms of learning, but equally much to be concerned about. The key point is that Canada needs a “coherent approach” to lifelong learning, what the council calls a “learning architecture.” Says Dr. Cappon: “It is not too late to get things right. But time presses. If we in Canada are not prompt and effective, better organised and determined international competitors will eat our lunch.”

Looking at the postsecondary education sector in particular, the report lists some hard truths. Among them:

• Canada is unique in the developed world for having no national strategy for PSE, no acknowledged and accepted goals, no benchmarks, and no public reporting of results based on widely accepted indicators.
• Canada is also unusual for having no national quality assurance system, no qualifications framework and no system of accreditation. This makes it difficult for both Canadian and international students to navigate the sector to their advantage.
• Canada has the greatest deficiencies in acquisition and use of data on learning after high school of any OECD country. This renders the country incapable of matching labour-market demand to supply, providing adequate information on which students can base study and career decisions, establishing accountability for resources expended and determining how much and what progress is being made.

In terms of how to proceed, specifically in postsecondary education, the report gives these recommendations:

• A national postsecondary strategy should possess three essential characteristics: clearly stated objectives, both general and for specific periods of time; measures to assess achievement of objectives; and a systematic goal of cohesion and coherence among all the facets – as is the case in the European Union (EU) and other developed countries.
• Emulate the EU in converging all forms of education and training across jurisdictions, thereby promoting mobility and quality. This implies harmonization across jurisdictions – not standardization.
• Create systems of accountability through agreement on national indicators for success in PSE, learning from EU, Australia and other political entities.
• Create a pan-Canadian PSE data and information strategy which acts as the basis for indicator development and policy decisions.
• Establish goals and measurable objectives for Canadian PSE for both the short and the long term.
• Create and maintain a national forum on PSE, including both governments and NGOs, that would: establish national goals, indicators, and data and would agree on mechanisms to monitor and report annually to Canadians on progress with respect to agreed goals.
• Construct a pan-Canadian framework for quality assurance.
• Establish a Canadian qualifications framework.

As I say, much indeed to chew on. Who else will produce this sort of work once the CCL is shuttered?

With Ontario’s budget delivered yesterday, half of the provinces have now weighed in on their fiscal fortunes for 2010 (a sixth province, Newfoundland and Labrador, tables its budget on Monday, March 29; Quebec’s budget is the next day, March 30).

Taken together, the news for postsecondary education is not glowing, but it is far from dire – especially compared to the situation in many U.S. states (more on that below).

Most of Canada’s universities are feeling the financial pinch, to be sure, in many cases implementing hiring freezes, cutting programs, etc. But, so far, in no province has operational funding to universities actually been cut.

Here’s a quick budget summary to date, province by province:

Alberta (delivered Feb. 9):

In its 2010 budget, the Alberta government is freezing the operating grants for postsecondary institutions, part of a six percent overall cut to the province’s advanced education ministry. The budget cut grants, scholarships and bursaries by $54 million, replacing the money with loans.

B.C. (March 2):

As in Alberta, the 2010 B.C. budget freezes government funding for postsecondary institutions but, in this case, for a full three years. Additional funding to student financial assistance programs are also frozen.

Saskatchewan (Mar. 24):

According to its 2010-11 budget, the Saskatchewan government will provide $556 million in operating funds to the province’s postsecondary institutions, an overall increase of five percent over last year. An additional $16.3 million in core funding will be provided to universities. Average tuition increases will be limited to five percent.

Manitoba (Mar. 23):

The 2010 Manitoba Budget will provide postsecondary institutions with a 4.5 percent operating grant increase. University fees also will be permitted to increase by a further five percent.

Ontario (Mar. 25)

In the 2010 Ontario budget, the government will spend $310 million to create 20,000 new university and college spaces. This is in addition, the government says, to the $155 million it provided in 2009-10 to support enrolment growth at colleges and universities.

And in the U.S. …

Now compare this to the situation in the U.S. According to the report, Higher Education Budgets and the Global Recession, published this February by the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, 34 states have been forced to make drastic cuts to spending on their colleges and universities since 2008. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities goes even further, claiming 39 states have cut spending on higher education during that same period.

A report in the Chronicle of Higher Education cites the example of Nevada: last month state lawmakers approved a 6.9-percent midyear cut for higher education, a reduction that came on top of a 24-percent cut in state funds the system had already been dealt in last year’s budget session. Six other states (Alabama, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Mexico and South Carolina) have seen spending on higher education cut by at least 15 percent over the past two years.

And then there’s the once-great University of California system. The Higher Education Budgets report says that, since 2008-09, the 10-campus state system has seen:

• a cut of $813 million in the state-funded operating budget, or approximately 20 percent over UC’s 2008-09 budget;
• a cut of 2,400 freshmen positions;
• salary cuts for academic and administrative staff of 4 to 10 percent;
• layoffs of 1,900 employees;
• the elimination of 3,800 faculty positions;
• student fee increases of approximately 32 percent since 2008.

Still considered by many to have the best university system in the world, the U.S. could be feeling the effects of these cuts for a generation.

I am annoyed by this whole Ann Coulter fiasco.

As was reported in the media this morning (see the Globe and Mail, CBC, CTV and Ottawa Citizen), Ms. Coulter was unable to give a talk at the University of Ottawa yesterday evening because of security concerns. Exactly whose concerns those were, and who decided to cancel the event, isn’t clear. Reports variously claim it was cancelled by the organizers (a group called the International Free Press Society of Canada, led by Ezra Levant), the university, the police, or Ms. Coulter’s own entourage.

The concerns stem from a loud and reportedly unruly crowd of students that had gathered outside the venue where Ms. Coulter was scheduled to give her talk.

I suppose, depending on your point of view, Ms. Coulter is a brash, rude and objectionable right-wing U.S. polemicist or she is a shrewd, brilliant and incisive right-wing satirist. Personally, I find her whole act ugly.

This entire confrontation is being spun as an issue of freedom of speech – and it is, of course. However, when I think of that lofty ideal, I think of reasoned and respectful debate. I believe Ms. Coulter’s appearance was not meant to be that at all, but was intended by the organizers as a blatant provocation. It was a cynical stunt.

Yes, the mature thing to do when provoked is to turn the other cheek. Reacting will only ensure her a higher profile and more media coverage. We all get that. But, as someone who went to boo Ronald Reagan on his visit to Parliament Hill nearly 30 years ago, while I was a student at University of Ottawa, who am I to say? Voicing your displeasure is a right, too.

Taking Stock, published by McGill-Queen's University Press

Some of the most enthusiastic and committed professors I’ve ever met have been those involved in the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, the Canadian organization that promotes the improvement of teaching and learning in higher ed. The society’s annual meeting (this year being held June 23-26 in Toronto) always seems to have the happy vibe of a revivalist meeting of the true believers and recent converts.

I bring this up because several long-time STLHE participants, along with other international experts, have come together to write Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.

The book is edited Julia Christensen Hughes and Joy Mighty, respectively past president and current president of the STLHE, and includes essays written by them and by other well-known Canadian experts, including Thomas Carey, Christopher Knapper and Alan Wright, to name a few.

This book is based upon a research symposium sponsored by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario and held in the spring of 2008. According to the council, the symposium “was based on the premise that, while much is known about student approaches to learning, and the relationship between how faculty teach and how students learn, common teaching practice does not reflect this knowledge.” Taking Stock, says the council, “attempts to redress this situation by calling for an evidence-based approach in our classrooms, and the wide-scale adoption of effective teaching practice.”

Among the book’s core findings:

• There is a relationship between how faculty teach and how students learn. When faculty teach in traditional teacher-centred ways, students tend to adopt surface learning strategies.
• There is also a relationship between how students learn and the learning outcomes they achieve. Surface learning strategies tend to result in a variety of learning deficits.
• The majority of faculty continue to teach in traditional teacher-centred ways, resulting in system-wide learning deficits.
• There is much faculty can do in support of student learning, from improving organization and communication in the traditional lecture to the adoption of non-traditional pedagogies and assessment techniques.

Those interested in improving their teaching may well wish to take a look at Taking Stock – and, by all means, to get involved in the STLHE.

The Bologna Accord is named after the University of Bologna, where the original declaration was signed in 1999.

A new report by the European University Association released last week analyses the impact that the Bologna process has had over the last decade on higher education in Europe. The Bologna process is the effort by the 46 countries in Europe to harmonize their higher education systems. It is an ambitious reform that is being followed closely by non-European countries. (I wrote a primer on the process, “The Bologna conundrum,” in February 2009).

The Trends 2010 report is based on responses to surveys sent to 821 universities and 27 national university associations, plus data from site visits in 16 countries. The EUA presented the report at a meeting of education ministers on March 12 in Vienna to mark the official launch of the European Higher Education Area and the end of the first phase of the Bologna reform process that begun in 1999.

Inside Higher Ed had a good summary of the report, which I quote here:

The new study shows clearly that the basic Bologna formula — in which bachelor’s degrees are three years, followed in some cases by master’s or doctoral study — is now entrenched. In 2003, only 53 percent of universities reported that they were structured along Bologna guidelines. This year, the figure is 95 percent. (While prior practices varied, pre-Bologna European higher education was a mix of three- and four-year degrees for undergraduate study, with relatively few master’s programs, which have proliferated under the system.) …

In both surveys and additional research done by the association with site visits, European academics reported that the significance of the shifts was not restricted to how long it takes to earn a given degree. Rather, they said that the “harmonization” efforts, in which the various countries have tried to be sure that degrees in the same field mean roughly the same thing, have led to all kinds of curricular changes.

Generally, the academics said that the emphasis on learning outcomes led to two related shifts. One was the development of more sophisticated quality control agencies and internal quality control mechanisms. The second was that more and more of the discussion among educators, especially with regard to bachelor’s degrees, focused on what students learn and the student experience.

Overall, the European universities are also giving high marks to the process. Asked to rate the efforts to create a common European higher education region, 58 percent of the universities said that the process has been “very positive” and another 38 percent said that they had experienced “mixed results.” Only 3 percent said that there were no real differences and less than 1 percent viewed the process negatively.

Not everyone is happy, however. A related special report in University World News this past weekend notes that student groups followed the education ministers to Vienna to protest against the accord. The students taking part in the protests “were united in their opposition to the Bologna process and most believe it is used as an excuse for policies which will see business and government gain increased prosperity in return for reducing the privileges of the academic community.” (See Student protests: No time for celebration and Bologna students: Urgent need for reform.)

It is a reform process still very much in evolution and will be fascinating to watch as it continues to unfold.

Like two end-of-term papers, two interesting reports were released this week by Canada’s competing national student groups, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students. I applaud their efforts.

CASA released its report on Monday (Mar. 8), entitled the Canadian Student Survey: Summer Work and Paying for Post-Secondary Education. The report is based on a survey commissioned by CASA and conducted on university campuses across the country in the fall term of the current academic year. The report, says CASA, “examines the strain of high youth unemployment rates, how students fund their education and how cash limitations affect their ability to pursue an education.”

The report notes that, despite their desire for a full-time summer job, nearly one-third of students surveyed reported they were able to find only part-time employment last summer. As a result, students managed to earn a median of just $3,200 from May to August, and were able to save less than half of that total.

The report also noted that having fewer funds can have a particularly negative affect on student persistence; students from low-income backgrounds reported that they were more likely to either leave full-time studies for lower-cost part-time options or leave postsecondary education altogether if costs increased. A second report based on the survey will be released later.

The CFS report, meanwhile, released by the group’s Ontario chapter yesterday and titled The Racialised Impact of Tuition Fees, found that rising tuition fees and student debt disproportionately affect visible minority students.

The report compares average incomes, rates of poverty, postgraduate earnings and debt repayment between what it calls “racialised” and “non-racialised” students to evaluate the additional burden of tuition fees and student debt on visible minorities. The report found that tuition fees eat up between 15 and 21 percent of the average earnings of visible minority people, four percent more than it does for non-visible minorities. It also found that higher student debt levels and lower postgraduate earnings “conspire to mean that racialised people pay more, on average, for their education than do non-racialised people.”

I think the report is a good reminder that, while tuition is not a barrier for most students, it certainly can be for some disadvantaged groups, and that debt-based student assistance only exacerbates the problem for these groups. The report is light on specific prescriptions, except for the blanket solution of most student groups: a new funding framework that “progressively reduces tuition fees.” I’m not sure how giving a tuition break to the better-off white kids will help, but maybe the CFS can explain that in their next term paper.

There will obviously be lots of analysis in the coming days of the federal budget, delivered yesterday. One of the things that immediately caught my eye was Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s pledge to conduct a “comprehensive review of all federal support for R&D to improve its contribution to innovation and to economic opportunities for business.”

Depending on one’s point of the view, this could be timely and welcome … or ominous.

But, in general, considering it was billed as a tight budget for tight times, there were a number of positive items for higher education and research. Paul Davidson, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said in a press release, “It shows that the government recognizes the vital role universities play in creating opportunities for Canadians in the new economy.”

But that sentiment wasn’t shared by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which called the budget a “major disappointment” for postsecondary education. James Turk, CAUT president, also took umbrage at the budget initiatives aimed at promoting the commercialization of postsecondary research: “This threatens the integrity of research and the independence and quality of education, and in the long term this will also work against real innovation.”

Here are the main highlights, taken directly from the budget documents:

The research granting councils

Budget 2010 increases the annual budgets of the three granting councils by an additional $32 million per year, starting in 2010–11. This new funding will enable the councils to sustain their overall support for research. The new resources for the councils will be allocated as follows:

• $16 million for CIHR;
• $13 million for NSERC including $8 million  per year to strengthen its support for advanced research, and $5 million per year to foster closer research collaborations between academic institutions and the private sector through NSERC’s Strategy for Partnerships and Innovation;
• $3 million per year to support world-leading research in the social sciences and humanities.

Indirect Costs Program

Budget 2010 also provides an additional $8 million per year to the Indirect Costs of Research Program. This enhanced funding will help institutions support the additional research activities enabled by the new resources provided to the federal granting councils through Budget 2010.

Post-doctoral Fellowship Program

Budget 2010 provides $45 million over five years to the granting councils to establish a new and prestigious post-doctoral fellowships program to attract top-level talent to Canada. The proposed new post-doctoral fellowship program will be designed to be internationally competitive. These fellowships will be valued at $70,000 each per year for two years. The first fellowships will be awarded in 2010–11. At maturity, the new program will fund 140 fellowships annually.

Genome Canada

Budget 2010 provides Genome Canada with an additional $75 million in 2009–10 to launch a new targeted research competition focused on forestry and the environment and sustain funding for the regional genomics innovation centres.

Canadian High Arctic Research Station

Canada’s Economic Action Plan laid the groundwork for delivering on the Government’s commitment to build a world-class Canadian High Arctic Research Station by providing $2 million over two years for a feasibility study for the proposed facility. Budget 2010 is taking a further step by providing $18 million over five years to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to commence the pre-construction design phase for the station.

TRIUMF

Budget 2010 provides $126 million over five years to strengthen the world-leading research taking place at TRIUMF. In combination with $96 million to be provided from existing resources of the National Research Council Canada, federal support for TRIUMF’s core operations will total $222 million over the next five years.

Rick Hansen Foundation

Budget 2010 provides $9 million over two years to support the Rick Hansen Foundation, including the 25th anniversary of the Man in Motion Tour and the new Rick Hansen Institute. This funding will contribute to advancing knowledge and research that will improve the lives of people suffering from spinal cord injuries in Canada and abroad.

National Research Council Canada Regional Innovation Clusters

The National Research Council regional innovation clusters program supports 11 technology clusters across all 10 provinces. These cluster initiatives support the development of dynamic Canadian firms, generate jobs and transform local economies. Budget 2010 provides $135 million over the next two years ($68 million in 2010-11 and $67 million in 2011-12).

Diversifying the supply of medical isotopes

Budget 2010 provides $35 million over two years ($19 million in 2010-11 and $29 million in 2011-12) to Natural Resources Canada to support research and development of new technologies for the production of isotopes. An additional $10 million over two years will be provided to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for a clinical trials network to help move research on isotopes and imaging technologies into clinical practice, and $3 million over two years will be provided to Health Canada to work with stakeholders to optimize the use of medical isotopes in the health system.

Canadian Space Agency

Budget 2010 provides the Canadian Space Agency with $397 million over five years to work with the Canadian space industry to develop the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, the next generation of advanced radar remote sensing satellites. Together with $100 million from existing resources of the Canadian Space Agency, $497 million will be invested over five years in advanced research, technology development and construction associated with the Constellation Mission. The bulk of this spending will occur after 2011–12. ($5 million in 2010-11 and $18 million in 2011-12)

International Science and Technology Partnerships

Budget 2010 will provide $8 million over two years ($4 million per year) to extend the International Science and Technology Partnerships Program (ISTPP). The ISTPP was launched to promote collaborative research and development activities with international partners such as India, China and Brazil.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Budget 2010 will provide Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) with $19 million per year, ongoing starting in 2010–11. This funding will allow the agency to extend the Atlantic Innovation Fund, a competitively allocated initiative that helps regional businesses, universities and research institutions to develop and commercialize new technologies, builds research capacity and encourages the creation of research and development partnerships.

Advancing the digital economy

The Government will develop a Digital Economy Strategy that will enable the ICT sector to create new products and services, accelerate the adoption of digital technologies, and contribute to improved cyber security practices by industry and consumers.

Canada Foundation for Innovation

Through Budget 2009, the Government committed to provide the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) with additional funding of $750 million. Of the funding announced in Budget 2009, the CFI has already committed $150 million to 28 exceptional projects through its 2009 competition. The balance of $600 million will support the Foundation’s future activities, including a new competition to be launched by December 2010. The CFI is finalizing its strategic plan, and remains committed to making strategic investments in current and new infrastructure. The Minister of Industry will provide additional details on the allocation of the $600 million in the coming months.

Aboriginal Canadians

The Government will engage in a new approach to providing support to First Nations and Inuit post-secondary students to ensure that students receive the support they need to attend postsecondary education. The new approach will be effective and accountable, and will be coordinated with other federal student support programs.

Pathways to Education Canada

Budget 2010 provides $20 million for Pathways to Education Canada to partner with the private sector, other governments and non-governmental organizations and work with communities in support of disadvantaged youth. This funding will enable Pathways to extend its reach to more young Canadians who are facing barriers to their pursuit of post-secondary education.

Supporting College Innovation

Through Budget 2010, the Government is doubling the budget of the College and Community Innovation Program (CCIP) by providing an additional $15 million per year starting in 2010–11. The new resources will support additional collaborative projects in colleges across the country, strengthen the competitiveness of small and medium-sized businesses through innovation.

Tuition fee increases – it’s a subject that raises emotions anywhere in Canada, but no more so than in Quebec, where tuition has been frozen or capped for the past 14 years. That didn’t stop former Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard and a handful of other prominent Quebecers from reigniting the debate last week. In their “pact for the competitive funding of our universities,” they call for increased tuition fees in Quebec and a deregulation of fees that would allow universities to charge higher fees for certain programs like medicine, dentistry and law.

Currently, according to Statistics Canada figures, Quebec residents pay $2,272 per year for an undergraduate education at a Quebec university. The Canadian average is nearly $5,000.

Teacher and student groups in the province denounced the proposals, but many media commentators seemed ready to at least consider the idea. The Globe and Mail did a very handy media roundup of the controversy as it unfolded in the province.

I do think it’s time to revisit the debate. It has been periodically re-examined over the years, but politicians have shown very little appetite to raise fees in the face of fierce student opposition.

Quebec has one of the lowest levels of university participation in the country, so if low tuition fees were meant to encourage participation rates, it doesn’t seem to be working. Many studies indicate that non-financial barriers are far more important in determining whether an individual does or does not choose to attend university. For a subset of individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, higher tuition fees may indeed be a barrier, but that would be better addressed through targeted, non-repayable grants.

There are many other aspects to this debate, of course, so feel free to weigh in. Let the debate begin.