Access Denied: Dismantling Public Post-secondary Education in Ontario

Competitive funding formula, evaluations mean universities must follow the free market

By: Rick Telfer

  Over the past six years, the Ontario government has moved decisively to lay the foundation for the development of a two-tiered system of post-secondary education. The Tories have cut funding for public institutions and shifted responsibility for funding to the private sector through a variety of public-private matched funding initiatives and policies based on little more than free market ideology.
  Strategic underfunding has created a crisis in higher education. Institutions have been forced to compete with each other for private sector dollars, while simultaneously increasing tuition fees for students. The fact that the Tories allowed regulated tuition fees to rise by 60 percent in the first years of their mandate has contributed to the fact that average tuition fees in Ontario are among the highest in Canada.

Ontario students who rely on financial assistance are, in effect, going into debt to finance their own student aid

Deregulation of tuition fees
  In 1998, the Tories moved to deregulate tuition fees for all graduate and post-diploma programs, as well as some professional and high-tech college programs. The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) views this move as a means, in part, of creating upward pressure on tuition fees at public institutions to correspond more closely with tuition fees charged at private institutions.
  The government justifies deregulation by stipulating that 30 percent of revenue from increasing tuition fees should be set aside for student financial assistance allocated on an institutional basis. This means that students who rely on financial assistance are, in effect, going into debt to finance their own student aid. Moreover, there is no guarantee that, in the future, this money will continue to be available for student financial aid. Data from other countries with similar policies indicate that the commitment to student financial aid has lapsed after tuition fees increased.
  Deregulation resulted in tuition fee increases of between 50 and 500 percent. However, as a result of the CFS’ vigorous campaign against rising tuition fees, the government was forced to concede in the area of regulated tuition fees. In the spring 2000 budget, the Tories announced a two percent "cap" on regulated tuition fee increases. Training, colleges, and universities minister Dianne Cunningham says the Ontario government has no intention of adjusting its current policy on tuition fees for a minimum of five years.

Key Performance Indicators skew institutions’ priorities
  The Tories have injected market competition into the funding formula for post-secondary institutions. Funding is now partly awarded based on individual institutional performance around certain criteria such as: the rate of student employment as measured six months and two years after graduation; the average default rate among students who graduate from a particular institution; and, the satisfaction of employers with graduates from particular institutions. These criteria are known as Key Performance Indicators (KPI). This mechanism has meant that institutions have had to shift the development of their curricula to correspond to the short-term dictates of the market in terms of immediate employment prospects for graduates.
  While the Ontario government believes this initiative will increase the responsiveness of institutions, KPI will likely not produce the desired results. The demands of the market are evaluated using hindsight, while academic programs must be planned in advance. By the time particular policies and curricula are implemented, the market demands could well have shifted, leaving students with less choice and poor quality education.

Bill 132: Private universities loom
  Since adopting legislation in December, 2000, that allows for-profit companies to sell degrees, it is likely that the Ontario government will move quickly to establish its "Quality Assessment Board", which will grant accreditation to institutions and companies wanting to issue degrees. It is likely student representation on this board will be marginal at best and that the private sector will have the majority influence.

Income-contingent loan repayment schemes
  Over ten years ago, Queen’s University published a document entitled "The Queen’s Blueprint for Action". This document argued that post-secondary education funding had to be restructured, shifting responsibility from the public to private individuals. The "Blueprint" proposed that tuition fees be deregulated, that a percentage of the revenue generated from those increases be set aside for student financial assistance and, to mitigate the hardship that might be caused by increasing tuition fees, that students should be provided with as much as needed in the way of student loans which would then be repaid after graduation as a proportion of individual income. This latter proposal was called "Income Contingent Loan Repayment" (ICLR).
  ICLR schemes have served internationally to impose massive debts upon the most vulnerable students that will take decades to repay. When the Queen’s document was released, the Canadian Federation of Students actively opposed ICLR schemes since they were part of an overall strategy to privatize post-secondary education. The Federation has consistently opposed ICLR and, in 1995, challenged the federal government’s plans to introduce ICLR schemes. Over 100,000 students demonstrated against the plan in January of that year. Consequently, during the federal election in November, 2000, the Liberal Party opposed ICLR schemes. However, the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party both endorsed variations of ICLR schemes.
  International trade liberalization and post-secondary education On January 18, 2001, the Globe and Mail ran a story suggesting that education and health have been on the agenda for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations. This is not surprising given the steps taken by the Ontario government as outlined above. Under some trade deals, government funding of public education could be construed as an "unfair trade subsidy" once higher education is on the market. Likewise, any government policy regulating tuition fees to ensure access could be deemed a "predatory pricing practice". Clearly, such challenges to public regulation and funding parallel the attack on accessible education spearheaded by the Ontario Tories.

The public wants increased public funding
  Two thirds (64 percent) of Ontarians want increased provincial government funding for colleges and universities, even though this may result in a cancellation of planned tax cuts or reduced government spending in other areas. That’s what a recent Ipsos-Reid poll commissioned by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA), the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the Ontario Public Service Employees Union OPSEU), and the Canadian Federation of Students indicated.
  Increased provincial funding garners the support of voters across all the major political parties who know who they would vote for if an election were held in the province "tomorrow". This includes a majority of decided PC voters (53 percent). Further, 70 percent of parents in Ontario are concerned (43 percent "very concerned") that their children may not be able to attend a public university or college if they are qualified and choose to do so. On an open-ended basis, concerned parents indicated that the main reason was that "they can’t afford it" (79 percent).
  Only a real and substantial re-investment in public, post-secondary education will end the current crisis. Only reduced, regulated tuition fees and core funding will ensure high quality, accessible colleges and universities. Sadly, the Ontario Tories would rather sell out the system and commit themselves to a free market ideology than commit themselves to Ontario’s middle and lower income families and students.

Rick Telfer is the Ontario National Executive Representative of the Canadian Federation of Students.

Posted: May 21, 2001
Updated: August 27, 2001

[ Front Page ]