The community college is one of many providers of postsecondary and adult education in Canada. In making decisions about how the community college should allocate its efforts among various possible programs and activities, it is important to understand its relationship to other providers of postsecondary and adult education. This article describes and analyzes the relationship between Canada's community colleges and other providers of postsecondary and adult education in Canada. It attempts to identify the comparative strengths and weaknesses of community colleges relative to other providers with respect to particular types of activity, and from that analysis it offers suggestions regarding the emphases that colleges might place on certain of their activities.
Le collège communautaire est un des nombreux fournisseurs d’enseignement supérieur et d’éducation aux adultes au Canada. En prenant des décisions concernant la manière dont les collèges communautaires devraient allouer leurs efforts parmi différents programmes et activités, il est important de comprendre leurs relations avec d’autres fournisseurs d’enseignement supérieur et d’éducation aux adultes. Cet article décrit et analyse la relation entre les collèges communautaires du Canada et les autres fournisseurs d’enseignement supérieur et d’éducation aux adultes au Canada. Il tente d’identifier les forces et faiblesses des collèges communautaires comparativement à d’autres fournisseurs relativement à certains types d’activités, et à partir de cette analyse, il offre des suggestions concernant l’importance que les collèges peuvent accorder à certaines de leurs activités.
Abstract
The community college is one of many providers of postsecondary and adult education in Canada. In making decisions about how the community college should allocate its efforts among various possible programs and activities, it is important to understand its relationship to other providers of postsecondary and adult education. This article describes and analyzes the relationship between Canada's community colleges and other providers of postsecondary and adult education in Canada. It attempts to identify the comparative strengths and weaknesses of community colleges relative to other providers with respect to particular types of activity, and from that analysis it offers suggestions regarding the emphases that colleges might place on certain of their activities.
Résumé
Le collège communautaire est un des nombreux fournisseurs d’enseignement supérieur et d’éducation aux adultes au Canada. En prenant des décisions concernant la manière dont les collèges communautaires devraient allouer leurs efforts parmi différents programmes et activités, il est important de comprendre leurs relations avec d’autres fournisseurs d’enseignement supérieur et d’éducation aux adultes. Cet article décrit et analyse la relation entre les collèges communautaires du Canada et les autres fournisseurs d’enseignement supérieur et d’éducation aux adultes au Canada. Il tente d’identifier les forces et faiblesses des collèges communautaires comparativement à d’autres fournisseurs relativement à certains types d’activités, et à partir de cette analyse, il offre des suggestions concernant l’importance que les collèges peuvent accorder à certaines de leurs activités.
This paper examines whether intermediary bodies are useful in advancing government goals for quality and sustainability in higher education systems. It explores the evidence about intermediary bodies through case studies of England, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. It also treats the case of Ontario, whose best-known intermediary bodies have been the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the colleges’ Council of Regents.
The purpose of this study was to identify how entrepreneurship education is delivered in Ontario colleges and universities. In Ontario, as in the rest of Canada, the increase in the number of entrepreneurship courses at universities and colleges, and the concurrent popularization and maturation of entrepreneurship programming, contribute to fostering entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, and the creation of businesses. The overall aim of this report is to inform debate and decision-making on entrepreneurship education through a mapping and assessment of existing programs in the province.
The purpose of this study was to identify how entrepreneurship education is delivered in Ontario colleges and universities. In Ontario, as in the rest of Canada, the increase in the number of entrepreneurship courses at universities and colleges, and the concurrent popularization and maturation of entrepreneurship programming, contribute to fostering entrepreneurial skills and mindsets, and the creation of businesses. The overall aim of this report is to inform debate and decision-making on entrepreneurship education through a mapping and assessment of existing programs in the province.
The search for effective public policy approaches for relating higher education to the needs of the labour market was a subject of much attention in the 1960s and early 19 70s, and the verdict was largely against centralized comprehensive manpower planning. This paper re-examines the role of manpower planning in the university sector, in light of new economic imperatives and new data production initiatives by Employment and Immigration Canada. It concludes by rejecting what is conventionally referred to as manpower planning, and offering, instead , a set of guidelines for improving the linkage between universities and the labour market within theframework of existing institutional and policy structures.
The idea of “productivity” in higher education is becoming a concern for some policymakers and observers of Ontario’s universities. This interest is fuelled by the province’s challenging deficit situation, which has put a premium on “doing more with less”. Productivity is featured in the Government of Ontario’s recent discussion paper, Strengthening Ontario’s Centres of Creativity, Innovation, and Knowledge, and was a prominent focus of the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities
strategic mandate agreement process.
Are there too many Canadian young people at university? I think the question is a fair one, but you would not think so from the reaction to the issue being raised. A report I prepared for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Career Ready, attracted way more attention for the suggestion that we could do with 30% fewer university students than at present.
The Canadian Mental Health Commission, launched August 2007, proposed to create a national mental health strategy with the release of the draft document, Toward Well-being and Recovery: A Framework towards a Mental Health Strategy for Canada, January 2009. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care released its document; Every Door is the Right Door - Towards a 10-Year Mental Health and Addictions Strategy: A discussion paper in July 2009. While both documents recognize the importance of targeting youth for interventions in order to improve population mental health, the reports overlooked the key role that colleges and universities play in promoting community mental health.
We, as Ontario College Health Association (OCHA), an association for college and university health services, are health educators/ health promoters, nurses, physicians, and medical clinic staff and managers, witness the devastating effects of mental illness on our students. Speaking from our shared experience as some of the front line care givers of students with mental illness, we will highlight in this report, the importance of targeting postsecondary students, the role that colleges and universities play in mental health promotion, and the barriers that prevent proactive and seamless mental health care on campuses.
• To set out a conceptual design for a new accountability framework for Ontario PSE
• Framework intended as ppart of HEQCO’s advice on new multi‐year accountability aggreements
• Complements other HEQCO work on this topic
The ability of students to move between colleges and universities is an activity, often expected by students, intended to combine the strengths of both sectors and support the pursuit of continuous lifelong learning. Students in Ontario have been ahead of educators and planners in “discovering the value of combining the strengths of the colleges in hands-on learning with the
strengths of the universities in academic education” (Jones & Skolnik, 2009, p.22). The College University Consortium Council (CUCC), established in 1996, was created, in part, to facilitate such activity. The Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education produced a report, Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility, which endorsed the CUCC as the objective body that would facilitate “province-wide information collection and comparative analysis” to assist all stakeholders in decision-making affecting postsecondary education (Smith et al,1996, p.48). The Investing in Students Task Force cited the CUCC in its 2001 report, advocating, among other things, for the body to “assess and evaluate the existing mechanism” of transfer
between the college and university systems (Investing in Students Task Force, 2001, p.20). Traditionally, Ontario has not held a coherent postsecondary education system with collaborative sectors, but rather two systems, college and university. The colleges were established to be comprehensive institutions that were occupation oriented and designed to meet the needs of the local community. These institutions were an alternative for those who were not inclined to purely academic pursuits and who did not have the qualifications to gain entry to university.
In 2004, in the discussion paper launching the Ontario Postsecondary Review, a student expressed his desire for “the freedom to move between programs or institutions with recognition of my previous work so that I can obtain an education as unique as I hope my career will be” (Rae, 2004, p.19). However, the paper continued by describing the existing situation as a
patchwork of institutional agreements that “cover only a fraction of existing programs”; therefore,in order to “ensure that its public institutions can meet the growing expectations of students and employers, and operate as a coherent system”, Ontario would need to establish a system to set “standards for credit recognition and student transferability between institutions” (p.21).
Attempts to formalize seamless pathways, however, have been confounded by a lack of data to support claims of student demand and actual movement, particularly from college to university.
Ontario colleges were not established to facilitate transfer, but the pursuit of articulation agreements by the institutions themselves and the historic movement of students into universities have legitimized this function as one of its main activities.
The Ontario government’s mandated collection of key performance indicators (KPIs) provides one opportunity to analyze provincial data that is systematically collected in a consistent manner. The Graduate Satisfaction Survey is used to calculate the results of two of the KPIs1, employment rate and graduate satisfaction. Additionally, the survey asks graduates if they have enrolled in an educational institution; students identify which institution and program. In 2005,the colleges and the MTCU decided to expand the survey for those who indicated that they had continued their education after graduation. Therefore, in 2006-07 a modified Graduate Satisfaction Survey with new transfer related questions was introduced. These additions and changes have enabled a deeper analysis of student movement between and within institutions or sectors.
The new questions were included to capture data that could better inform colleges about the students who graduate from their respective institutions. The questions on transfer were also intended to assist the government on matters that could affect policy with respect to student movement, particularly between postsecondary sectors. In addition to documenting the program and institutional destination of graduates seeking further education, the graduate survey now gathers information on the motivation for continuing, the source of transfer information, the amount of transfer credit received, the timing of notification for credit, the relationship to the previous program, the satisfaction with the transfer experience and the satisfaction with college preparation for further studies. This report is the first comprehensive analysis of the new questions from the first year of administration (2006-07).
Despite research interest in the motivations, experiences and challenges of Ontario postsecondary students who have transferred from college to university, there has been too little in-depth quantitative analysis on these topics. This study contributes to the literature by documenting transfer between York University and Seneca College – two institutions whose strong partnership has encouraged a high volume of transfer in both directions – over a period of 12 years (2000-2012).
In this follow-up study, college students who transferred to one Ontario university in 2008–2009 were compared to non-transfer students using several different measures of academic success at university. When compared to non- transfer students, college transfer students earned fewer credits each year, had lower GPAs, and were less able to earn credits from course attempts. The differences were small for students’ first and second years but larger in years three and four. Despite the
lower GPA, college transfer students were not more likely than non-transfer students to be eligible for academic suspension. College transfer students also attempted fewer courses and were much less likely to persist to Year 4. By spring 2012 (after four years of university), the college transfer students were more likely than non-transfer students to have graduated, but their degree of choice was a 15-credit three-year degree (as opposed to a 20-credit four-year honours or
non-honours degree). Policy implications are discussed.
In this follow-up study, college students who transferred to one Ontario university in 2008–2009 were compared to non-transfer students using several different measures of academic success at university. When compared to non- transfer students, college transfer students earned fewer credits each year, had lower GPAs, and were less able to earn credits from course attempts. The differences were small for students’ first and second years but larger in years three and four. Despite the lower GPA, college transfer students were not more likely than non-transfer students to be eligible for academic suspension. College transfer students also attempted fewer courses and were much less likely to persist to Year 4. By spring 2012 (after four years of university), the college transfer students were more likely than non-transfer students to have graduated, but their degree
of choice was a 15-credit three-year degree (as opposed to a 20-credit four-year honours or non-honours degree). Policy
implications are discussed.
Last year, Yukon College announced that, by 2021, it would become Yukon University. The territory’s minister of education, Doug Graham, had approved the institution’s name change in November, but the transition has been in the works for several years, according to Yukon College president Karen Barnes. Also in November, Sheridan College, based in Brampton, Ontario, hosted a town hall meeting to outline its progress in becoming Sheridan University – a journey that started in 2011 when Sheridan’s board of directors approved the institution’s plan. Sheridan College president Jeff Zabudsky expects the process to be completed in 2020.
It is a fundamental responsibility and obligation of government and of institutional leaders to assure that postsecondary institutions are sustainable and capable of providing a high quality academic experience.
This paper offers a conceptual framework for examining the sustainability of Ontario’s public postsecondary institutions. It discusses the definition of the term “sustainability,” how it can be measured and the various tools and strategies available to both institutions and government to meet sustainability risks when they are identified.
ABSTRACT
In analyses of higher education systems, many models and frameworks are based on governance, steering, or coordination models. Although much can be gained by such analyses, we argue that the language used in the present-day policy documents (knowledge economy, competitive position, etc.) calls for an analysis of higher education as an industry. In this paper, the university sector in Ontario’s higher education industry is analyzed by applying Michael Porter’s five forces framework defined by the following forces: the threat of new entrants, supplier power, buyer power, the threat of substitutes, and industry rivalry. Our assessment revealed that competition in Ontario’s higher education industry (university sector) is currently mixed. The findings suggest that policy-makers, the sector, and individual institutions will need to consider more seriously the impact of technology and globalization when seeking a competitive position for the Ontarian higher education system.
RÉSUMÉ
En termes d’analyse des systèmes d’enseignement supérieur, de nombreux modèles et cadres de référence sont fondés sur des modèles de gouvernance, de pilotage ou de coordination. Malgré la pertinence de ces analyses, nous soutenons que la langue utilisée dans les documents de politique actuels
(économie du savoir, position concurrentielle, etc.), notamment, incite à une analyse de l’enseignement supérieur en tant qu’industrie. L’article revoit le secteur universitaire de l’industrie de l’enseignement supérieur de l’Ontario en appliquant le modèle des cinq formes de Michael Porter, définies en fonction des forces suivantes : la menace d’entrants potentiels, le pouvoir de négociation des fournisseurs, le pouvoir de négociation des clients, la menace des produits de substitution et l’intensité de la concurrence intrasectorielle. Notre évaluation a révélé que la concurrence au sein de l’industrie de l’enseignement supérieur en Ontario (secteur universitaire) est présentement mixte. Les résultats suggèrent que les décideurs politiques, le secteur et les institutions individuelles devront prendre en compte plus sérieusement les répercussions de la technologie et de la mondialisation pour positionner de manière concurrentielle le système d’enseignement supérieur de l’Ontario.
As industries evolve and demographics change, the need for education continues to grow.
We, as a global society, spend quite a bit of money on higher education – BMO Capital Markets estimates that the United States alone spends approximately US$1.7 trillion on educational services – including about US$600 million on post-secondary education – and GSV Advisors estimates that worldwide spending is quickly approaching US$5 trillion.
That’s a lot of cash. And yet, as we spend more money on education, and as universities create new degree and certificate programmes, employers are asking for graduates with different skills than the ones we teach and some students struggle to get jobs, leaving many unemployed or underemployed.
When former University of British Columbia president Martha Piper was asked in 2011 about the impact a university president has, her swift response, after nearly 10 years at the helm before her retirement in 2006 was, “not much.” As Ms. Piper returns to the university as interim president after Arvind Gupta’s hasty departure this month, would she say the same thing today?
A total of 61,696 full-time applicants to Ontario colleges opted-in to participate in the 2015
UCAS™:
59,568 English-speaking applicants and 2,128 French-speaking applicants at the time of survey
administration.
• Academica Group provided unique web links as well as the invitation email text to the Ontario
College Application Service (OCAS). OCAS then sent the survey invitation email to college
applicants. Applicant contact information was not shared with Academica Group at any point in the
process.
• The survey was in-field from March 12 to April 21, 2015. Reminder emails were sent on March
24 and April 8 to those who had not yet responded. Respondents who completed the survey were
entered into a draw to win over $5,000 in prizes.
• 14,331 college respondents completed the survey (13,661 English and 670 French) providing an
overall
response rate of 23%.
• This sample size provides results at the 95% confidence level of plus or minus 0.39
percentage points.
• Respondent data was weighted by gender and language to reflect the original population
invited to
participate.