Abstract
Inspired by Ontario’s burgeoning interest in postsecondary student mobil- ity, this article examines how elements of Europe’s Bologna Process can help bridge the college–university divide of Ontario’s postsecondary system. Via discourse analysis of relevant qualification frameworks and program stan- dards, it argues that the current system disadvantages students by failing to recognize that the Ontario advanced (three-year) diploma in Architectural Technology is equivalent to a baccalaureate-level qualification in the inter- national context. The article concludes by discussing the larger significance of these findings in terms of ongoing debates about the “changing places” (HESA, 2012) of degrees in the Canadian higher education system.
Résumé
Inspirés par l’intérêt naissant de l’Ontario envers la mobilité des étudiants postsecondaires, les auteurs du présent article examinent comment les éléments du processus de Bologne en Europe peuvent contribuer à combler le fossé collège-université du système d’enseignement postsecondaire de l’Ontario. Grâce à l’analyse du discours portant sur des normes de programme et des structures de qualification pertinents, l’article fait valoir que le système actuel désavantage les étudiants du
fait qu’il omet de reconnaître que le diplôme ontarien de niveau avancé (trois ans) en technologie de l’architecture équivaut à une qualification d’un niveau correspondant au baccalauréat dans un contexte international. Enfin, l’article conclut en abordant l’importance plus grande de ces constatations en termes de débats ayant cours à propos des « autres lieux » (HESA, 2012) des diplômes ou grades du système d’enseignement supérieur du Canada.
Even among the business savvy, it’s not at all uncommon for these marketing terms to be thrown around almost interchangeably, when they actually mean very different things and play very different roles in business development and promotion. So we thought it was high time to clear it up and help you know and understand the difference so you can be better informed buyers and users of marketing, design and branding services.
Students from a number of groups remain underrepresented in Ontario’s universities and colleges, including low-income students, Aboriginal students, first generation students whose parents did not attend a post-secondary institution, rural and northern students, and students with dependants. Improving access to higher education for these and other underrepresented groups is widely acknowledged as essential to building a more equitable society and to competing in the increasingly knowledgebased economy. Indeed, Premier McGuinty has stated his desire to see 70 per cent of Ontarians complete post-secondary education, and achieving this target will require a concerted effort to reduce participation gaps.
In this paper we utilize interview data to explore the workings of a college–community partnership program that delivers tuition-free, for-credit courses to low-income adult students in neighbourhood-based settings. Addressing the interplay of individual and structural barriers on the educational readiness of students, our findings explore how the program builds participants’
confidence and self-belief, and how the neighbourhood-based delivery model encourages their engagement with post-secondary education (PSE). We find that the value of embedding PSE capacity and resources in low-income communities lies not only in its potential to engage adult learners, but also in how it nurtures a greater sense of community integration and social inclusion. We
conclude by suggesting that our study provides a useful foundation for institutions elsewhere aiming to recalibrate and extend their community outreach strategies when seeking to promote post-secondary access and engagement for low-income populations.
When Ontario began to expand its higher education system in the mid-1960s, it made an important choice: to provide public funding to universities on the basis of a formula. Many jurisdictions, in Canada and beyond, do not use such formulae in their higher education systems. But there are clear advantages to such an arrangement. A funding formula supports the distribution of funding in a predictable, equitable way, that can be easily understood by those who study and work within our
universities.
Nevertheless, no formula can remain functional forever, especially as the world changes and our expectations of universities shift. For this reason, OCUFA welcomes the University Funding Formula Review, initiated by the Government of Ontario in early 2015. We particularly welcome the opportunity to provide feedback into this process on behalf of the province’s professors and
academic librarians.
The university funding formula is deeply important to the success and vitality of Ontario’s universities. It cannot therefore be treated as a laboratory to play with the latest fads in university finance. A measured and responsible approach to reforming the university funding formula should retain its greatest strengths, while correcting its flaws. The Government of Ontario, as the
steward of the university sector, has the important task of working with the sector to identify these weaknesses and strengths, and rejecting harmful policy proposals masquerading as innovations.
When Ontario began to expand its higher education system in the mid-1960s, it made an important choice: to provide public funding to universities on the basis of a formula. Many jurisdictions, in Canada and beyond, do not use such formulae in their higher education systems. But there are clear advantages to such an arrangement. A funding formula supports the distribution of funding in a predictable, equitable way, that can be easily understood by those who study and work within our universities.
Nevertheless, no formula can remain functional forever, especially as the world changes and our expectations of universities shift. For this reason, OCUFA welcomes the University Funding Formula Review, initiated by the Government of Ontario in early 2015. We particularly welcome the opportunity to provide feedback into this process on behalf of the province’s professors and academic librarians.
The university funding formula is deeply important to the success and vitality of Ontario’s universities. It cannot therefore be treated as a laboratory to play with the latest fads in university finance. A measured and responsible approach to reforming the university funding formula should retain its greatest strengths, while correcting its flaws. The Government of Ontario, as the steward of the university sector, has the important task of working with the sector to identify these weaknesses and strengths, and rejecting harmful policy proposals masquerading as innovations.
This submission makes the case that the basic mechanic of the existing formula is sound, but needs to be updated and streamlined. It is also important to consider how the existing formula does not serve some universities – such as those in Northern Ontario – and how changes can be made to address these challenges.
We also argue that performance funding – currently a cause célèbre south of the border, chiefly among those who do not actually work in universities – is not the right approach for Ontario. There is no evidence that performance funding improves student outcomes, but there is growing evidence that it actually has a variety of negative effects. It also violates numerous principles outlined by the University Funding Formula Review team, while cutting against beneficial and collaborative processes for improving quality.
Finally, we suggest that the goals of transparency, accountability, and quality are best served by a new higher education data system. Such a system would be created and run collaboratively by the sector, with the goal of fueling meaningful policy discussions through the provision of timely and useful data.
Once again, OCUFA appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the University Funding Formula Review. We look forward to working with the government to build a university system that promotes quality while protecting the important principles that have allowed our institutions to be so successful.
Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology (CAATs) were granted authority to offer bachelor degrees in 2000, and the first degree programs were offered in 2002. The rationale for granted colleges permission to offer degrees was threefold: first it was to meet the needs of a higher skilled workforce in a changing economic, social and political environment; second, it was to widen access to degrees for Ontarians overall, but particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to attend a college than a university; and third, it was anticipated that college degrees would be less expensive than university degrees for students and governments (Skolnik 2016b).
Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology (CAATs) were granted authority to offer degrees in 2000, and the first degree programs were offered in 2002. The rationale for granting colleges permission to offer degrees was threefold: first it was to meet the needs of a higher skilled workforce in a changing economic, social and political environment: second, it was to widen access to degrees for Ontarians overall, but particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to attend a college than a university; and third, it was anticipated that college degrees would be less expensive than university degrees for students and governments (Skolnik 2016b)
This!project!researched!the!impact!of!bachelor!degrees!on!colleges!and!students.!It!includes!four!main! methodological!components.!The!first!was!an!extensive!literature!review!of!the!literature!in!Ontario,! Canada!and!international!relevant!jurisdictions.!This!is!included!in!the!main!report.!The!literature!review! also!analysed!39!theses!on!college!baccalaureates!in!the!North!America,!including!seven!based!on! Canada.!This!is!included!as!Appendix!2.!The!second!is!the!process!of!data!analysis!which!had!two! components.!The!first!component!was!analysis!of!open!access!policy!and!accreditation!documents!and! college!websites.!The!second!component!was!analysis!of!the!Ontario!Student!Satisfaction!Survey,!the! Graduate!Outcomes!Survey,!the!Ontario!Employer!Survey!of!college!graduates!and!college!enrolment! data!and!graduation!rates.!The!second!consists!of!interviews!with!102!people,!including!policy!leaders,! institutional!leaders,!faculty!members!and!degree!students.!The!fourth!is!a!curriculum!analysis!that! compares!and!contrasts!four!degrees!in!colleges,!four!degrees!in!universities!that!emphasise! experiential!learning,!and!four!degrees!in!traditional!universities.!
This document contains the appendices to CAAT baccalaureates: What has been their impact on students and colleges?
This document contains the appendices to CAAT baccalaureates{ What has been their impact on students and colleges?
There are no easy answers for California's two-year college system as it faces an unprecedented decision to move to a new accreditor, while also debating how to change the current one.
Academic freedom controversies continue to bedevil universities, highlighted most recently by the stunning episode at Wilfrid Laurier University. That a teaching assistant in a communications program would be reprimanded for showing video clips of a debate on the use of gender-neutral language is almost incomprehensible.
Academic freedom is not absolute, and there are some reasonable constraints that govern its application. But none have been offered that justify Wilfrid Laurier’s rebuke of the teaching assistant. She appeared to have been encouraging debate and civil discourse on a topic about which people disagree. That, indeed, is a key function of academic freedom, and of the university itself.
Over the past year Canadians have borne witness to some of the greatest economic uncertainty in our history. As the global economy fell into a deep recession, many Canadians were laid off or unable to continue to work full-time, while others left the labour market, retiring early or heading back to school.
In hard times Canadians look to their government for leadership. In response to this demand the federal government embarked on one of the most expensive spending programs in Canada’s history. The 2009 budget included over $50 billion in stimulus spending. Despite this massive investment–arguably the biggest re-engagement of the federal government in decades–there was nothing offered to make college and university more affordable or help the thousands of students and graduates with mortgagesized debt loads.
Canada's ranking in the newest How Canada Performs: Innovation report card is good news. Canada ranked 9th among 16 countires , comparied to 13th in the previous Conference of Canada ranking.
As Canada confronts growing competition throughout the world, the human resources supporting our business enterprises are becoming ever more important.
Canadian businesses began to report serious problems finding the workers they needed as the Canadian economy slowly grew out of the recession.
The evidence is clear. The demographic shift resulting in retirements, a deepening shortfall of skilled workers and the growing mismatch between the skills needed and those available has evolved into a skills crisis. The Canadian economy faces a deep structural problem.
2012 has been the tipping point for many Canadian businesses confronting skills and labour shortages. A critical issue that had been hidden by the recession is now fully apparent.
RBC Economics Research depicts the overall gap that will develop as the number of workers available is outpaced by those needed over the next 20 years.
We live in a world where economic, social and personal fulfillment depends less upon what we know, and more upon what we are able to learn, how we think and the degree to which we are able to respond to change around us. As centres of learning and discovery, universities play a crucial role in this process. Universities transform the lives of people, who in turn transform
our communities, our country and the world.
This report analyzes the results of a poll conducted for the Canadian Council on Learning.
Pacific Issues Partners was engaged to design a sample and questionnaire appropriate for developing a better understanding of the public’s attitudes, preferences and knowledge on a number of issues related to post-secondary education.
The major topics included:
Overall evaluation of post-secondary education in Canada
Importance of post-secondary education to society and the individual
Access and barriers, in general and for specific groups
Funding and financial barriers to education
Purpose of education and relation to potential employment
Relations with and importance of post-secondary institutions to community
Values and broader goals for education
Priorities for change and the future of education
When it comes to gender parity in the corner office, Canadian colleges are in front of their university counterparts. In fact, almost a third of college presidents are female, while just one in five top university executives are women. “We are very proud of our numbers,” says Denise Amyot, president of Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan)—the first female to hold this position in the association’s 40-plus years. “We have quite a few women. It’s just amazing.”
Thirty-eight of the 127 member colleges of CICan have a female in charge, compared to just 19 of Universities Canada’s 97 member institutes (30 per cent vs. 20, respectively).
ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL.—Under the Canadian Constitution, education is the responsibility of the provincial governments. There is no single, national school system; each of the provinces grapples with the problem in its own way. Yet the similarities among the provincial school systems are more striking than the differences. In every province education is administered by a Minister of the Crown, advised and aided by a group of employed experts. The chief of these is usually
styled deputy minister or superintendent of education. In every province except the smallest (Prince Edward Island), the provincial contribution to educational budgets is much less than the amount derived from local taxes on real property; in all provinces the degree of provincial control of education is high, especially over such items as the training and certification of teachers, curricula, standards, and supervision. Every province requires school attendance to the age of fourteen, some to the age of sixteen. Although junior high schools or intermediate schools are found in many urban centers, the usual pattern is the familiar 8-4 arrangement. Quebec has a seven-year elementary school and two of the provinces have five-year secondary schools.