Excellence Accessibility ResponsibilityReport of the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary EducationDecember 1996Dear Minister, We are pleased to submit to you our report on future directions for postsecondary education in Ontario. We make our recommendations after consultation with several hundred Ontarians who brought diverse perspectives from within and from outside postsecondary institutions. The province has a postsecondary education system of which they can be proud and which has provided tremendous benefit to individuals and to our society. The high quality of the educational experience is well recognized, whether it is a diploma or certificate granted through a College of Applied Arts and Technology, or an Ontario university degree. It is imperative that our postsecondary education institutions continue to provide high quality programs and to be accessible. In examining the serious challenges postsecondary education faces, we have thus been guided by the fundamental importance of excellence and accessibility in the context of shared responsibility. Respectfully,
Excellence, Accessibility, ResponsibilitySummary and RecommendationsOur Approach to the MandateThe Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education was appointed in mid-July, 1996 by the Minister of Education and Training, with the following terms of reference:
The Panel was asked to report by December 15, 1996, which necessitated an accelerated approach to consultation and development of our advice. We did not have the time to explore some topics with the care and depth they deserve, and we have noted at various places in the report where we think further study is needed. We drew, however, on the expert knowledge of many people and on the findings of the many studies and reviews of postsecondary education that have been conducted over the past 25 years. We were able to build on their insights. Our consultation turned out to be extraordinarily interesting and helpful. We met with representatives of every university and college of applied arts and technology, usually in a roundtable format that paired colleges and universities. We were interested in hearing from students, faculty, staff, governors, and administrative officers. Because of the importance, diversity and large size of the student constituency, Panel members made special efforts to meet separately with groups of students at various institutions. The Panel met with representatives from a number of provincial-level organizations, including associations of students, faculty and staff, business and community groups, research and labour organizations, and the general public. Private vocational schools and institutes were also invited to participate. We met with people from outside the postsecondary sector who could bring a broader perspective to the public policy issues. In addition, we welcomed written briefs from anyone on any aspect of our mandate. While our schedule did not permit meetings with everyone who contacted us, we read all the briefs carefully. A summary of our consultations is in Appendix A of this report. The number (185) and quality of the briefs attest to the serious and widespread concern about the future of Ontario's postsecondary education sector. We regret that time has not permitted us to incorporate in our report many important arguments contained in the briefs, but, because they are public documents, the briefs will continue as a rich source of information for future studies. We received, for example, important briefs from aboriginal groups. We applaud and encourage their search for policies that will fit their distinctive needs and will ensure appropriate standards. We came to understand more fully the special needs of northern universities and colleges which must provide a reasonably comprehensive set of programs to geographically dispersed students and the special needs of Franco-Ontarians for programs that are both widely available in French and of high quality. We believe the issues these groups face merit careful attention, but we felt our time was too limited to develop recommendations in these areas that we could advance with confidence. Appended to our report is a Background Paper by our colleagues, David M. Cameron and Diana Royce. It is a history of postsecondary education in Ontario that provides a valuable context and perspective on the issues of the present. Our Themes: Excellence, Accessibility, ResponsibilityBefore turning to our recommendations, we wish to note briefly the sense we have gained of the overall importance of the topic and the themes that have dominated our thinking. A first-rate and accessible set of universities and colleges will contribute substantially to the economic, social and cultural development of our society. We thus believe deeply that a high priority should be placed on ensuring that Ontario is outstanding in postsecondary education and associated research activity. The benefits of meeting this priority are enormous, as are the costs of not meeting it. The Panel believes that the basic structure of Ontario's postsecondary sector is sound. There is no need to impose a grand new design. However, there are clear signs that the postsecondary sector is under pressure. The Panel is convinced that, without significant change in the way the sector is evolving and the way it is resourced, its quality and accessibility will be undermined, along with institutional capability to deliver the broad range of programs and the high calibre of research that will be needed in future. We must be careful to preserve existing strengths, but we must also recognize that change is necessary to meet the needs of learners and society in the twenty-first century. Success in meeting this challenge will depend greatly on the fulfilment of many interrelated and shared responsibilities. Thus,
A general principle we endorse that draws together some of these responsibilities and focuses on the learning experience is as follows: Postsecondary education must evolve in a way which provides the opportunity for a high-quality learning experience to every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it. The framework within which these shared and inter-related responsibilities can best be developed to produce excellence and accessibility should have, in our view, a number of characteristics:
To promote excellence in postsecondary education and associated research activities, to provide accessibility for learners to a wide variety of high-quality learning opportunities, and to establish a framework of shared responsibility to build a postsecondary sector well-prepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, the Panel makes the following recommendations. RecommendationsAdequacy of Total Financial SupportTotal financial support for colleges and universities from public and private sources has become seriously inadequate in recent times. This assessment is based on a variety of measures we have examined, including total financial support available to public postsecondary institutions in other jurisdictions in North America. We believe that the correction of this situation, now and in the future, should be a widely shared responsibility in Ontario. Recommendation 1 The Level of Government SupportRecent sharp reductions in government grants to Ontario colleges and universities followed a long period of restraint over the past twenty years. The adverse financial impacts are apparent in many indicators. For example:
Tuition fees have increased substantially in Ontario, but the increase has only partly offset the decline in direct government support. To reduce the impact of higher fees on accessibility, additional government funds have flowed to student assistance programs. These indicators, along with much other evidence submitted to us, lead us to the conclusion that public financial support for postsecondary education in Ontario is seriously inadequate – indeed it has become so low that the sector's competitive position in North America is dangerously at risk. Much time, effort, and resources have been devoted to building the structure of colleges and universities that Ontario needs. It would be extraordinarily short-sighted to let it crumble now. Thus, while we appreciate the call for all sectors to share in the general constraints on public expenditures, we believe that much attention must also be given to priorities in a longer-term context. A first-rate postsecondary education system is vital for Ontario's future. To meet this priority, we are convinced that the system should not sustain further reductions in grants, and that a medium-term goal should be for government support to approximate the average of other Canadian provinces and to close the gap with public funding of major public university and college systems in the United States. Recommendation 2 Distribution of Government FundingThe present method of distributing the government's core operating grants to universities through a corridor system appears to be working well. The corridor funding system provides a buffering from enrolment changes. Within a specified band of enrolment, an institution's share of grants and fees remains unchanged. This system has brought greater stability to shares of revenue than in the past, and it has been conducive to planning. But care is needed to prevent helpful stability from becoming undesirable rigidity. We recognize that, on occasion, minor modifications may be desirable to reduce barriers to adjustments. For example, a university that is closing or reorganizing programs might seek permission to dip temporarily below its lower corridor limit without severe financial penalty. There is a longer-term issue that should be recognized. Enrolments are projected to increase substantially, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, over the next ten to fifteen years. Ontario's universities and colleges have expressed confidence that they can absorb the projected enrolment increases. In addition, the tuition fee policy we recommend later in this report will strengthen incentives to respond to enrolment pressures. However, in light of the impact a major increase in enrolment would have on the corridor system, the situation should be monitored regularly in the years ahead. Recommendation 3 The present method of distributing the government's operating grants to colleges of applied arts and technology – which is essentially a moving average of three years' enrolment – creates undue sensitivity to enrolment and undue dependence of one college's finances on enrolment policies of other colleges. A corridor system, adapted to the special features of colleges, would assist them, we believe, in managing change. Implementation issues, including transition to a new system, will need to be addressed. Recommendation 4 Research Funding and PolicyResearch is an integral part of the functioning of all universities, although some are evolving as more research-intensive than others. Canadians are highly dependent on universities for basic research and scholarship. Because basic research produces a public good, it requires public funding, much of which comes through federal granting councils but which is also influenced by provincial research policies. A particular difficulty for universities has been that awards from granting councils carry no allowance for associated indirect costs, such as library, equipment, space and principal investigators' salaries, and we do not think the assignment of a higher weight to graduate student enrolment has solved this problem. Moreover, we are concerned by evidence of a slippage in recent years in Ontario's share of peer-adjudicated research grants, especially since we believe research should be a high priority for public policy in Ontario. It should also be noted that centres of specialization in applied research are emerging in colleges. We urge the Province to consider a policy of focusing more of its limited resources on promoting excellence in research, through directing funds to the research overheads envelope to be distributed on the basis of measures of quality.
Tuition Fees and Student AssistanceFor the past three decades, government has controlled university tuition fees by establishing an annual formula fee applicable to broad categories of programs and allowing universities limited discretion to set actual fees above that level. Universities can set fees, but government controls fees by linking formula fee revenue with the allocation of operating grants: revenue from fees set above the formula rates results in reductions in operating grants. Government currently allows universities to charge fees up to 23% above the formula without penalty. For the colleges, the Province sets a standard tuition fee applicable to all postsecondary programs. For both systems, the government determines the allowable annual increase in fees. The Panel believes that responsibility for setting fees should be shifted more to the universities and colleges. We support greater institutional flexibility to determine fees, program by program. However, this deregulation is conditional. Flexibility must be balanced by enhanced assistance for students in need. Our proposals are designed to ensure that, as we stated earlier, there is the opportunity for a high-quality learning experience for every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it. With regard to shifting responsibility for setting fees more to universities and colleges, we propose that the following steps be taken:
We recognize that tuition fees have increased dramatically in the past few years. Currently, the maximum tuition fee for full-time college students is $1,275. For full-time undergraduate university students, it is $2,935. The Panel is aware of students' concerns about increasing debt loads, which may be difficult to repay under the current fixed-term loan arrangements, and the impact of conversion from the grant-first program to a loan forgiveness program. Our recommendations address these and other concerns. The Panel believes that a strengthened and much-enhanced system of provincial and institutional student assistance should be developed. We favour a mixture of sources of support:
Private Sector SupportPrivate sector support comes in many forms, including student fees and through the operation of privately-funded postsecondary institutions. In this section, however, we focus on private sector support provided through philanthropy, partnerships and the purchase of training services. We think there is a potential for increased private donations and gifts, though the overall totals are likely to remain modest in relation to other major sources of revenue for colleges and universities. Moreover, for a number of reasons, donations and gifts continue to be substantially lower in Ontario and Canada than in the United States. One reason is the preferential tax treatment given by the United States to capital gains associated with charitable gifts. A number of Canadian charitable organizations have pointed to this difference in discussions with the federal government and have argued that similar treatment in Canada would lead to significant increases in charitable giving without a major reduction in government tax revenues. Recommendation 8 Business and other organizations have many specific training needs that colleges and, to a lesser extent, universities can provide. Much of this support for training in the past came from federal direct purchases of labour market training from colleges, but this source has sharply declined and is due to be phased out soon. Greater responsibilities for training are being shifted to provinces as a result, and future opportunities for financing training programs will depend also on the interests of the private sector, as well as on developing international training programs. Given the shifting public and private sources of support for training, there is a need for improved means of coordinating various initiatives and for clearer provincial policies on negotiating with international agencies and governments. The regulatory framework should be supportive. Recommendation 9 Roles and Linkages Among Colleges and UniversitiesWe think the basic idea of a parallel system of colleges and universities is still sound, but there is an important evolution in their roles and linkages. Since the creation of colleges in the mid-1960s, their mandate and missions have developed within a fairly elaborate regulatory and policy framework administered by the Ministry of Education and Training or its predecessors. The Panel supports some easing of the regulations. In particular, the application of prescribed geographical areas for a college's services may be imposing inappropriate limits on the overall scope of a college's services. While colleges should continue their commitments to the education and training needs of local communities, we believe there is no longer a need for government-defined catchment areas. Geographic responsibilities should not be disincentives for the promotion of a college's unique resources on a province-wide basis. Recommendation 10 While we support a parallel system of differentiated colleges and universities, it is important to remove unnecessary barriers to students wishing to transfer among them and also to the sharing of services and facilities. We are encouraged by the degree of activity in recent years in developing linkages among the institutions and endorse the aims of the recently established consortium to further such linkages. Recommendation 11 The appropriate credentials for recognizing completion of college studies is a difficult issue to which we have given much thought and which has produced a spectrum of opinions in the college community. It is clear to us that college diplomas do not currently provide adequate recognition. It is also clear that there is much need for ongoing work to establish minimum standards across the college system for an Ontario College Diploma. The Panel also considered whether colleges should be given degree-granting authority. There is a range of views on this issue, even among the colleges. While we are sympathetic to some of the arguments offered in favour of access to degree-granting status, we think it is better at this time to focus attention on strengthening recognition of the college diploma as a distinctive credential. Further review of this matter could be undertaken at a later time.
Advice on Postsecondary IssuesThere are important issues that cannot be addressed adequately by a ministry of education or by associations of universities and colleges. We thus propose establishing an advisory body on postsecondary education. In establishing such a body, measures should be taken to ensure that it not become an innovation-stifling regulatory body, an expensive addendum that consumes funds which should be directed towards the basic work of colleges and universities, or a place for inappropriate political appointments. Indeed, the key to the advisory body's success will be the careful selection of its leadership, which should combine a high degree of credibility, integrity, and expert knowledge. With these words of caution, we nevertheless feel that such an advisory organization could bring substantial benefits. Recommendation 13 Meeting Future NeedsCurrent demographic projections point to a substantial increase in population, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, in the next ten to fifteen years. While much uncertainty necessarily surrounds the projections of both population and the estimates of likely enrolment levels based on them, we think there will be significant pressures on colleges and universities to increase enrolment, particularly in the GTA. We are encouraged by the flexibility that existing institutions are showing in reorganizing the geographical sites for their programs and in developing innovative jointarrangements between and among colleges and universities. We think that there is still substantial flexibility in using existing physical facilities more intensively and that this flexibility will be further enhanced in the less regulated system we are recommending. Recommendation 14 Appointing and Retaining the Finest Teachers and ResearchersThe excellence of universities and colleges depend s critically on appointing and retaining the finest teachers and researchers. They tend to be mobile and are attracted to locate in areas where, in the future, they are likely to receive competitive compensation and research support and where they will be able to interact with other top scholars. Ontario should strive to be among the leading areas in North America in this regard. Much needs to be done to ensure this condition. A particularly important step, in our view, would be a carefully structu red program for faculty renewal. It would be based on the idea of a matching fund. This idea was very successfully introduced for student assistance in the spring of 1996 under the title of the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund and with a closing dat e of March 31, 1997. The government agreed to match private donations for student assistance and has estimated that the matching contribution would likely be about $100 million with a total endowment of twice that figure. Under our proposal for a fa culty renewal matching fund, university governing bodies would be expected to identify areas of particular need for faculty renewal. The matching fund would be directed to special funds or endowments for hiring "the best and the brightest", part icularly in the early stage of their careers, and for retaining top senior scholars. For colleges, the identification of specific areas of need for faculty development is also important, and the fund should be available for such areas. Recomme ndation 15 Internal processes for recognizing and encouraging performance in teaching and research require close attention. We are c oncerned about internal regulations and agreements that suppress recognition of performance. It should be a clear responsibility of governing boards, as part of their accountability function, to ensure appropriate processes are in place to recognize perfo rmance. Recommendation 16 We are aware that special issues arise for colleges on this matter, especially in view of their current centralized system of collective bargaining, but we believe they need greater flexibility at the institutional level in human resource management. It is often suggested that the banning of tenure in universities w ould help improve performance, but we believe this step would not likely be helpful. For Ontario to take this step alone would add substantially to the costs of hiring and retaining faculty in Ontario. There are some important aspects of the original rati onale for tenure that are still relevant, despite the security provided by developments in administrative law and by agreements on employment practices. The key issue is that there must be in place processes for the careful evaluation of teaching and rese arch performance and for the taking of corrective measures, where needed. Recommendation 17 Role for Privately Funded UniversitiesWe have encountered much misunderstanding about various options that are referred to under the frequently misused term "privatization". For example, it is highly unlikely a sufficient endowment could be raised to convert any of Ontario's major universities to a university supported entirely by private funds. Existing universities and colleges are becoming more private in the sense that revenue from fees an d other private sources has increased substantially relative to revenue from public sources. The emergence of some programs, such as MBA programs, the costs of which are fully covered without public funds is not in our view to be discouraged, but we think the possibilities for this type of conversion to full-cost funding are limited to a few professional programs. Many private institutions now offer postsecondary education and training, including a large number of private vocational schools or care er colleges and several denominational institutions. Many of the former would like to have degree granting powers. But we think such a step would not be appropriate and suggest that the institutions develop and propose instead standards for distinctive cr edentials. With respect to the latter – denominational colleges – two have conveyed to us their wish to extend their degree-granting powers from degrees with a theological or religious designation to degrees with titles that secular institutions use. We think their distinctive and important studies should continue to carry theological or religious designations, unless such colleges become part of a university and its governing structures through affiliation. We encourage the Council of Ontario U niversities to develop general guidelines for institutional and program affiliation, which will assist potential applicants in their pursuit of such arrangements. We come, finally, to the case of whether a proposal for a new private university – ; however meritorious – should ever be approved. We believe that such approval should be possible provided that strict conditions are followed as outlined in the body of our report. Recommendation 18 The Way AheadWhere do we go from here? In many areas we have been marking time, and in a fast-moving and highly competitive world, that means we have been slipping back. That is not acceptable for a province with the human and natural wealth and potential of Ontario. This province should be a leader, not a follower, in investing in its future. It has been a leader many times – when it shed discretionary funding in favour of Canada's first formula-driven grants, when John Robarts transformed the high school curriculum and embraced the idea of comprehensive secondary schools, and again when William G. Davis introduced the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. These were bold designs, and boldness is what we need once again. What we do not need is to cast aside the progress we have made and impose a grand new design. We h ave been well served by our past. We should build on its legacy, rather than tear it down and start again. We must not, however, be prisoners of our past. There is much that is worthy of praise along the road we have travelled, but there is much that need s to change on the way ahead. Boldness tempered by wisdom is needed in charting our future course. Pragmatism, not ideology, will best guide our journey. There is one value we place above all others. That value is quality. We must not settle for sec ond best. There is little room in the global village for second rate, especially in learning. Ontario should not accept second best in any branch of postsecondary education. It will mean transforming some institutions. It will require both patience and te nacity in moving beyond some institutional customs and agreements which serve more to protect mediocrity than to promote excellence. With such evident strain on our public resources, we cannot afford to invest in mediocrity. Quality does not attach only to what one does, but has more to do with how it is done. Postsecondary education consists of many things: learning through research into the fundamental questions of humanity and nature; solving practical problems in industry; acquiring specific ski lls required in the marketplace; training for the ancient and emerging professions; discovering and transmitting the wisdom of the past, confronting the moral dilemmas of the present, and learning to take care for the future. This is not a hierarchy, in w hich "quality" work is marked by the task undertaken. Quality is marked by how well these things are done, and is every bit as important in practical study as in theoretical pursuits, in teaching as in research. The servant of quality is s pecialization, requiring differentiation among our institutions. We cannot expect all to be excellent in everything. We cannot afford to support them as though they were. This is why we do not look for grand designs. Pushing institutions into prescribed b oxes is not the route to quality. We believe profoundly that our postsecondary institutions need to have the room to experiment, to abandon what they cannot do well enough, and to concentrate their resources in areas in which they can. We want to free the creative spirit of the best minds within our institutions, not constrain them through central plans and regulatory controls. Equally important for both governmental and institutional leaders is that rewards must go to those who succeed and not to those w ho fail. We see no good reason to abandon the distinction between college and university. We think this duality captures an important reality in postsecondary education. We observe from our history how easy it is to smother the necessity of practical educ ation in the superficial allure of snobbery masked as abstraction. Institutions will evolve, in the future as in the past, and we would make room for that. But we would also advise against falling victim to institutional gold-plating. We think it is time to set high standards, and to define the conditions most likely to achieve them. After that, others will have to take up the practical challenge of being leaders and learners. One of the conditions for this will be a much stronger willingness on the part of institutions, both across the binary divide, as well as outside the postsecondary sector, to cooperate and collaborate, in joint planning, in credit transfers and in creative partnerships. Which brings us to the question of accessibility. Who are these differentiated institutions intended to serve? Obviously they serve the whole of society, offering enormous returns on the investment in a highly trained and educated labour force, in research and development, in an informed and responsible citizen ry. But there are also secondary benefits, accruing to individuals by virtue of their participation as students and scholars, not to mention their higher incomes and enhanced security of employment. Here, we praise the boldness of the John Robarts' declar ation for the 1960s, and we offer the following to guide us into the next millennium: we must provide the opportunity for a high quality learning experience to every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it. Postseco ndary education is not a constitutional right. Education cannot be given, nor received on demand. It must be acquired through active learning, and for most it is achieved only by dint of very hard work. We speak, therefore, not of rights but of shared res ponsibilities – of government, institutions, students, families, and private business. This is not without financial consequences. Within the framework of shared responsibilities, we think it falls to government to ensure that the public colleg es and universities of this province have an adequate and stable base of operating support. This is not now the case. In the current situation, the contribution of students and their parents, through tuition fees, will increase in some circumstances, if w e are to escape the slippery slope to mediocrity. We accept this as necessary, but only on the condition that those qualified but in need are not barred from admission. Private institutions have played an enormously important role in our past, espec ially those sponsored by religious communities. The days of denominational control of universities have passed, although religious communities continue to play an important role in the delivery of religious, theological and philosophical postsecondary edu cation. However, there is no reason to bar secular participants. We would simply demand that the standards be no less high, and that stable and adequate revenue from endowments must be demonstrated since there is no prospect for government support for suc h initiatives. The public, through taxation, has made a great investment in its provincial colleges and publicly assisted universities; it has every right to continue to reap the benefits. Taxpayers have the right to be well served by these institut ions, and to remove from them unnecessary barriers to necessary change and adaptation. We propose no attack on conditions required for scholarly inquiry, including academic freedom and institutional autonomy, properly understood. We do, however, find faul t with practices that value security over quality and serve to constrain institutional flexibility. We have no interest in denying to employees the right to bargain collectively, but we have grave concerns that the responsibility of governing boards to en sure that our colleges and universities are well managed may not always be given equal recognition. Finally, we recognize that by placing a premium on deregulation and differentiation, we have created a consequent need to protect both public and pri vate interests. There is a public obligation to secure truth in advertising, to protect students from exploitation, and to monitor and assure the quality of the postsecondary enterprise. It is not enough to establish the conditions for excellence; we must also ensure their continued vitality. This is the route we offer for the future. It will require tough decisions, bold leadership, and hard work. In return, it promises rewards that have been the inspiration of civilized and prosperous societies th roughout history. We have risen to the challenge in the past; we owe nothing less to the future. Mandate of the PanelIn July 1996, the Minister of Education and Training established the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education. The Panel was asked to consult with the pos tsecondary community and the public, and advise on a policy framework for postsecondary education that addresses the following:
At the same time, the Minister released a discussion paper, Future Goals for Ontario Colleges and Universities, to initiate and focus the public consultation. Consultation ProcessThe Minister asked the Panel to report to him by December 15, 1996. This timetable necessitated an accelerated approach to consultation and to the development of our advice. Despite the compressed timetable, the Panel was committed to hearing from every college1 and university2 in Ontario. To broaden the consultations, college and university presidents were invited to bring a delegation representing various perspectives to the roundtable sessions held across the province. As a result, we were able to engage in discussion with many faculty, staff, students, governors, administrative officers, and people drawn from local communities. In addition to delegations from publicly-funded institutions, the Panel met with representatives from provincial-level organizations including student associations, staff associations, faculty associations, business and community groups, research and labour organizations, and the general public. Private vocational schools and institutes were also invited to participate in consultation meetings. Because of the importance, size, and diversity of the student constituency, Panel members made special efforts to meet separately with groups of students at various institutions. We welcomed briefs on any aspect of our mandate, and although we could not meet with everyone who contacted us, all briefs were read carefully. Written submissions were accepted until October 31, 1996. We received important briefs from aboriginal groups, and we applaud and encourage their search for policies that will fit their distinctive needs and ensure appropriate standards. We came to understand more fully the special needs of northern universities and colleges which must provide a reasonably comprehensive set of programs to geographically dispersed students. We appreciate also the needs of Franco-Ontarians for programs that are both widely available in French and of high quality. We believe the issues these groups face merit careful attention, but we felt our time was too limited to develop recommendations in these areas that we could advance with confidence. While our timetable did not permit us to undertake research on many topics relevant to our mandate, the Panel sought information from recognized experts in a variety of fields related to postsecondary education to assist us in our deliberations. Our interests extended to meeting with people from beyond the postsecondary sector who could bring a broad perspective to public policy issues. We were interested as well in the forces that have shaped the evolution of Ontario's postsecondary institutions. Our colleagues, David M. Cameron and Diana Royce, contributed a Background Paper on the history of postsecondary education in Ontario that provides a valuable context and perspective on the issues of the present. This paper is appended to our report. Our deliberations were significantly informed by an array of reviews on universities, colleges, or the postsecondary sector as a whole, including The Learning Society, the 1972 report of the Commission on Post-Secondary Education in Ontario, led by Douglas Wright; the 1981 Report of the Committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario, chaired by H.K. Fisher; the 1984 report of the Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario, chaired by Edmund C. Bovey; the review of the mandate of the colleges, led by Charles E. Pascal, resulting in the 1990 report, Vision 2000: Quality and Opportunity; the 1993 report, called No Dead Ends, of the Task Force on Advanced Training, chaired by Walter Pitman; and the 1993 report of the Task Force on University Accountability, chaired by William H. Broadhurst. These studies have helped shape the development of government and institutional policies over the past twenty-five years, and in many areas we have been able to build upon their insights. The number (185) and quality of the briefs the Panel received attest to the widespread interest and concern about the future of postsecondary education in Ontario. We regret that we could not fully incorporate in our report many important arguments and analyses presented in the briefs, but these are public documents and will serve as a rich source of information for government and the postsecondary community. For a complete list of the institutions, groups and individuals with whom the Panel consulted and from whom we received briefs, please refer to Appendix A. Purposes of Postsecondary EducationIn considering the most appropriate way to approach our mandate, the Panel reflected on the purposes of postsecondary education and on whether Ontario's postsecondary sector is structured to fulfil these purposes in the years ahead. The purposes of postsecondary education can be summarized as follows:
To fulfil these purposes, a full range of high-quality educational opportunities must be offered, and delivered in a variety of ways. The structure of Ontario's postsecondary sector – with its parallel systems of publicly-funded universities and colleges of applied arts and technology, together with a network of over 300 licensed private vocational institutions and a number of privately-funded religious institutions – has fulfilled these purposes quite well up to now. This structure has not developed randomly. As the historical overview presented in the appended Background Paper illustrates, government policy has long dictated that public support would be provided to secular universities, operating with full autonomy in academic matters, and developing across vast geographical areas to meet Ontario's requirements for undergraduate and graduate education, for professional studies, and for scholarship and research in social, cultural, scientific, technological, agricultural, industrial, and medical fields. Technical and vocational education developed along another path, with several different initiatives culminating in the creation of colleges of applied arts and technology in the mid-sixties. The colleges were established as community-based institutions to provide a comprehensive array of career-oriented programs in applied arts, business, technology, and health sciences. While concentrating public support on these colleges and universities, however, the government permitted the operation of privately-funded institutions – including denominational colleges, and private vocational schools and institutes – which generally focus on a limited range of programming. Throughout the history of postsecondary education in Ontario, the importance of higher education to the development of society and to economic prosperity has been recognized. Today, in the midst of global economic, social and political change, a strong and vibrant postsecondary education sector is more important than ever. In this so-called information age, support for knowledge generation in our society, preparation of knowledge workers for our economy, and support for lifelong learning and innovative research in our institutions are key to our collective future. The Panel is convinced that a strong, vital, and accessible university and college system is essential to Ontario's development and competitiveness. Excellence, Accessibility, and ResponsibilityThe Panel believes that the basic structure of Ontario's postsecondary system is sound. There is no need to begin anew, to cast aside the progress Ontario has made, or to impose a new design. There are numerous indicators of the favourable performance of Ontario's colleges and universities, and these are well documented in briefs to the Panel and elsewhere. However, there are clear signs that the postsecondary system is under pressure. The Panel is convinced that without significant change in the way the sector is evolving and the way it is resourced, its quality and accessibility will be undermined, alon g with institutional capability to deliver th e broad range of programs and the high-calibre research that will be needed in future. We must be careful to preserve existing strengths, but we must also recognize that change is necessary to meet the needs of learners and of society in the twenty-first century. Three overriding objectives for postsecondary education in Ontario – excellence, accessibility, and responsibility – have guided the recommendations in this report. The foremost goal for government, institutions and students with respect to postsecondary education must be excellence. All else will follow from that. We believe deeply that a high priority must be placed on ensuring that Ontario is outstanding in postsecondary education and associated research activity . Throughout the Panel's deliberations, we heard from hundreds of individuals and organizations with an abiding interest in postsecondary education and the institutions that offer it. In their presentations and briefs, they expressed often conflict ing views about how colleges and universities should adapt to meet the needs of learners and society in the twenty-first century. But they held one view in common: a belief in the crucial role that high-quality postsecondary education and research play in the development of individuals and the economic, social, cultural, and scientific development of the province. The Panel has sought to explore how excellence in all aspects of postsecondary education can be maintained and enhanced within an environ ment of constrained public resources. We believe that postsecondary education must evolve in a way which provides a high-quality learning experience to every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it. There are pressures and opportunities on the horizon. Demand for places in postsecondary institutions is projected to grow considerably in the next fifteen years. The restructuring of the secondary school curriculum from a five-year to a four-year program is expected to have consequences for colleges and universities. Increasing numbers of adults seeking to renew their skills as the world of work changes will be looking for flexible learning opportunities in colleges and universities. To achieve the objective of accessibility, a key consideration is that the financial burden for students and potential students should not be a barrier to access. Another aspect of accessibility is the need for a range of opportunities, a variety of programs, courses and types of institutions, to fit the needs of a variety of learners. This includes the need to ensure lifelong access to the benefits of postsecondary education for an increasingly diverse population of learners and the need to preserve these benefits for the good of society. We recognize, however, that postsecondary education is not a right that somehow can be conferred upon all who demand it. We argue instead, that all who participate and benefit share responsibility for the cost and quality of education. We sought to develop a strategy for the future within a framework of the shared responsibilities of government, institutions, students and their families, and private business and industry:
Strategy for the FutureThe strategy we propose for the future of postsecondary education in Ontario is characterized by greater differentiation among institutions; by less regulation accompanied by greater responsibility and accountability of governing bodies; and by public and private commitment to ensure the adequacy of the resources available to institutions and to students who face financial barriers to access. Differentiation in StrengthsOverall excellence can best be achieved through continuous effort by institutions to develop and maintain the highest quality in their areas of strength and specialization. This requires differentiation among institutions. We cannot expect all institutions to be excellent in everything. We cannot afford to support them as though they were. We believe profoundly that our postsecondary institutions need room to experiment, to abandon what they cannot do as well and concentrate their resources in areas where they can excel. A complementary relationship among institutions, rather than a hierarchical relationship, should emerge. We see no reason to eliminate the distinctions between colleges and universities; the existing duality captures an important reality in postsecondary education. But the ease with which a student can move between the two systems and draw on the different strengths of various institutions will be a key factor in the delivery of the type of academic and vocational and advanced training programs that students need now and in the future. Deregulation with AccountabilityThe question of whether the evolution of the postsecondary sector should be directed by government or undertaken in a decentralized manner is crucial. The Panel believes that excellence, differentiation, and the effective use of resources are best encouraged in a less regulated environment than Ontario now has. Deregulation is a necessary condition for institutional development and adaptation, which will lead to expanded opportunities for learning. This position is practical, not ideological. Universities and colleges perform best in education and research when they have a large measure of autonomy, reinforced through full accountability and responsibility exercised through their governing bodies. The deregulation of fees with conditions to improve student assistance will allow institutions to set tuition rates that are reflective of the value and quality of the ir programs and o f the economic benefits students derive from education. At the same time, financial barriers to student access must be alleviated, by improved institutional assistance programs and a government student assistance program that allows loan repayment geared to income and provides grants to students who have the highest needs. Deregulation also involves careful scrutiny of existing regulations and policies – those internal to the institutions as well as those emanating from government – to en sure that rigidities such as those arising from standardized terms and conditions of employment do not interfere with an institution's capacity to be responsive to the needs of students, employers, and society. Institutional policies that present unnecess ary barriers to student mobility must also be examined and modified. Government policies and regulations must be reviewed with an eye to eliminating those that place unnecessary constraints on an institution's ability to develop programs quickly to meet emerging education and training needs, or on their entrepreneurial and partnership activities with the private sector. Deregulation also necessitates an examination of the policies emanating from the Degree Granting Act to determine wh ether the approach should be altered from that of prohibiting the emergence of private, not-for-profit universities to that of defining the strict conditions under which permission would be appropriate. Deregulation must be accompanied by clear lin es of accountability. Excellence cannot simply be asserted; in a system characterized by freedom to develop institutional strengths, accountability and transparency will be essential to ensuring that students and the public are well served. The role of in stitutional governing bodies will be crucial, as government, the public, and students seek assurances that institutions are meeting their responsibilities efficiently and effectively while adhering to recognized standards of quality. Institutional leaders as well as government must be willing to ensure that exceptional performance and inadequate performance are not equally supported. There will be an urgent need for information and reliable data to help institutions, students and their families, em ployers, and others make informed decisions and choices. Both public and private interests must be protected. There is a public obligation to secure truth in advertising, to protect students from exploitation, and to monitor and ensure the quality of the postsecondary enterprise. It is not enough to establish the conditions for excellence; we must also ensure their continued vitality. Our recommendations include, therefore, that existing institutional and provincial governance structures be reinforced by an advisory body responsible for assisting in drawing together information and analysis on the postsecondary sector as a whole. Adequacy of ResourcesWhile differentiation and deregulation with improved standards of accountability and quali ty are crucial in the pursuit of excellence and accessibility, it is clear that the adequacy of the resources available to the system is an overwhelming consideration. We heard from members of the postsecondary community who argued strongly that a financi al "disinvestment" in recent years has brought Ontario's colleges and universities to the point where the quality of the learning environment is being weakened. It is the Panel's belief that the overall level of resources available to publ icly-funded colleges and universities must be increased so that quality can be enhanced and the diverse needs of learners met. It falls to all participants to contribute to meeting the costs and to making effective use of the resources available. Th e concept of shared responsibilities is integral to the discussion of the adequacy of the financial resources available for ensuring excellence and accessibility. The Panel considered carefully what contribution each of the participants – government, institutions, students and private organizations and individuals – might be expected to make. While not apportioning a set share to each, the Panel nevertheless considered carefully the level of appropriate effort. Outline of this ReportIn the pages that follow, we outline in more detail our proposals for achieving excellence, accessibility, and responsibility in postsecondary education in Ontario. Our strategies of differentiation, deregulation, and adequacy are interwoven into our discussion and recommendations on the overall policy framework needed to achieve these objectives. We have, however, related our discussion to the three major issues of our mandate. In Chapter II, we discuss the sharing of costs among all participa nts, and include a brief examination of the level and distribution of public support, including support for research; the ways in which private sector support could be increased; and the policies on tuition and student support required to prevent the eros ion of quality and access. In Chapter III, we explore the roles of postsecondary institutions and the linkages between and among them. Also included is a discussion of ways to enhance college credentials. We then turn to our views on the need for a n advisory body to provide information and analysis. In Chapter IV, we analyse issues related to future demand for postsecondary education, including the capacity of existing institutions to meet demand. We examine ways of preserving excellence thr ough strategies for attracting and retaining the finest teachers and researchers, and for ensuring high standards of performance. We also explore the conditions under which privately-funded not-for-profit universities might emerge in Ontario. This chapter deals with financial resources for postsecondary education in Ontario. First, we discuss how the financial situation in the postsecondary sector stands today, and how the Panel ev aluated the adequacy of resources. We discuss the shared responsibility of all participants to invest in the system. This chapter includes the Panel's conclusions and recommendations on the following:
Financial Resources for Postsecondary EducationOntario would not have the highly-regarded postsecondary system it has today if the Province had not decided many years ago that it was in the public interest to invest in a high-quality, accessible system. As readers of the Background Paper appended to this report will find, the system was not created without a struggle. Nor was it created as a homogeneous whole. The system grew in response to increasing deman d for a variety of educational opportunities beyond secondary school – a demand that continues strongly today. In recent years the level of financial support flowing to postsecondary education has been severely constrained, and in the briefs a nd presentations made to the Panel, we heard a great deal about the consequences of this. Representatives of the university and college community identified the inadequacy of resources available as one of the most serious challenges they face today. The r eduction in resources was likened to a "disinvestment" in postsecondary education in Ontario. Two themes emerged in the consultations. First, there has been a direct negative impact on the current operation of colleges and universities and their delivery of service. Second, their capacity to prepare adequately for future challenges is being undermined. The briefs and presentations documented the pressures on institutional operations and services. There have been significant reductio ns in staff complement, in administrative areas, and in counseling services, libraries, and other areas which directly affect the learning experience of students. Colleges and universities alike indicated that there have been increases in class siz e and student/faculty ratios. Colleges in particular have had to close numerous programs, in such a short time that system or regional rationalization has not always been possible. The recent reductions in provincial operating grants and in federal funds for training have resulted in budget and program cuts that have not always been strategic; rather, they often have been governed by the random uptake of early retirement and voluntary exit packages. Perhaps the most obvious indicators of the difficulty in stitutions have had in absorbing the cuts are the substantial increases in the number and size of operating deficits over the past year. Many institutions indicated that in managing the fiscal restraint, they have, to varying degrees, "mortgag ed their future". The immediate costs of early retirements, voluntary exits and severance packages have been met through deficit financing. These transitional costs will be financed with anticipated income from future years, reducing funds available for learning and research in those years. Institutions voiced concerns about a looming "brain drain" as high-calibre faculty and candidates are lost to jurisdictions that offer better working conditions and a superior research infrastruct ure. Ontario's share of federally sponsored research grants has declined in the recent years, a decline influenced by a weakening infrastructure and the loss of key faculty in some disciplines. There is a pressing need for faculty renewal, but this is an expense few institutions can shoulder at present. Another concern is physical plant. Many maintenance and renewal projects at the colleges and universities have been put off for a long time. Over the last two decades, many institutions have not been renewing their equipment and buildings adequately. Many of the buildings date from the mid-sixties and earlier, and are starting to require major work. In addition, buildings are being used more intensively than originally anticipated because of enrolmen t increases, putting additional pressure on maintenance. It is difficult to estimate the cost of the backlog of required maintenance, but it is clear to the Panel there are significant future costs for universities and colleges in the renewal of bu ilding and equipment. If work does not proceed soon, there could be severe problems. This should be addressed as a priority issue immediately, before institutions are faced with a massive renovation bill precipitated by deteriorating facilities. Th ere are pressures for adequate resources from other directions as well. As explored in more detail in Chapter IV, there likely will be a continued increase in demand for postsecondary education in Ontario, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as a result of population increases. The restructuring of the secondary school curriculum to provide for completion in four years has the potential of creating a double cohort of postsecondary entrants for a limited time in the years ahead. In addition, the restructuring of the Ontario economy and labour force that we continue to experience puts a premium on participation in postsecondary education. Over the past decade there have been significant net gains in jobs requiring postsecondary education and even larger net losses in jobs requiring high school graduation or less. Indeed, "[h]igh knowledge industries, though only one-third of total employment, contributed more to job growth than all other industries combined."3 As the world of work continues to restructure, there will be pressure for higher participation in postsecondary education from both secondary school graduates and adults seeking to renew th eir skills to function in a knowledge-based economy. Information technology is a vital component of an institution's infrastructure and it is having a significant effect on the work of colleges and universities. Information technology is being used in colleges and universities to streamline administrative systems and reduce unnecessary duplication of services among institutions; to improve access to learning opportunities by expanding delivery options and to enhance the quality of learning in class rooms and labs; to facilitate communication between and among faculty and students; and to expand access to information resources. Colleges and universities must continue to invest in technology as it will be an important tool in enabling institutions to share resources and to meet the projected demand for postsecondary education in a cost-effective way. While we have identified considerable pressures on Ontario's colleges and universities, it is difficult to measure directly the level of investment required to ensure that the system is capable of meeting the needs of learners and society. However, the Panel has examined several indicators of the adequacy of the investment in Ontario postsecondary institutions compared to the investment in other par ts of Ontario's public sector. As well, we have examined comparators with other jurisdictions in North America. Unfortunately, those that were useful and reliable were university-oriented. We were unable to find reliable interjurisdictional indicators for colleges. We strongly urge government and the college community to direct attention to development and collection of reliable comparative indicators to assist in the evaluation of resources in the colleges. Table 1 summarizes a series of comparati ve indicators of the support available to postsecondary institutions in Ontario. Table 1 Summary of Comparative Indicators of
Adequacy of Resources
Notes Sources: a. Council of Ontario Universities. When provincial government operating support for universities is examined, Ontario is at or near the bottom of the rankings of Canadian provinces. Similarly, when total revenues are compared with major jurisdictions in the United States, resources for Ontario's universities lag be hind those available to public universities in these states. Table 1 also shows that the postsecondary sector has been more severely constrained than some other sectors in the Ontario public sector. The share of Provincial budgetary expenditures fo r college and university operations has declined from 8.1% in 1977-78 to an estimated 4.9% in 1996-97. When spending is calculated on the basis of the number of people served, it is clear that Ontario's colleges and universities have seen long-term declin es in real expenditures per student, while other transfer payment recipients such as hospitals and elementary and secondary schools have experienced real growth in expenditures per client served. All of these factors point to a need to address the adequacy of resources available. The Panel agrees with those who say that it takes decades to build a high-quality, effective postsecondary sector, but that such a system is fragile and can be undermined quickly with devastating consequences for our socie ty and economy. Ontario's commitment to excellent, publicly-supported postsecondary education must be renewed. The postsecondary system is an essential component of the infrastructure required for Ontario to be competitive in the emerging global kn owledge-based economy. The Panel believes that the high quality of the postsecondary system cannot be sustained in the current financial environment. If the system is to meet Ontario's needs in the | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
