A society’s aging, or its age distribution, is normally viewed from the perspective of the number of years since birth. In this E-Brief, however, we propose an alternative: measuring age according to the number of years remaining in life.
Taking increases in longevity into account, a 35-year-old Canadian had a remaining life expectancy of 38.6 years in 1950, but 46.8 years in 2010, a difference of 8.2 years. Viewed so, the Canadian population is not getting older in the traditional sense, but “younger,” because many workers are approaching retirement age more able, and willing, to work longer than were previous
generations of Canadians.
Because many older Canadians are already deciding to retire later than the arbitrary age of 65, public policy should aim to provide Canadians with the instruments to better manage retirement decisions.
Population aging: those two words, it seems, inspire fears of different kinds. The number of retirees per active worker is steadily climbing. The problems this could engender are rather obvious: absent a significant increase in productivity, GDP growth is bound to slow down, which would exacerbate the growing stress on public finances, in particular through health expenditures.
Years ago, the process of faculty evaluation carried few or none of the sudden-death implications that characterize contemporary evaluation practices. But now, as the few to be chosen for promotion and tenure become fewer and faculty
mobility decreases, the decision to promote or grant tenure can have an enormous impact on a professor’s career. At the same time, academic administrators are under growing pressure to render sound decisions in the face of higher operating costs, funding shortfalls, and the mounting threat posed by giant corporations that have moved into higher education. Worsening economic conditions have focused sharper attention on evaluation of faculty performance, with the result that faculty members are assessed through formalized, systematic methods.
I am a relative newcomer to contract instructing, having moved to Ontario from Saskatchewan in 2010, for family reasons related to health care for my younger son, who is a special-needs child. We moved from Saskatchewan because we were unable to get the health care we needed for him. My wife and I had a unique position at the University of Saskatchewan. We had a job share; she was on the tenure- track in Physics, and I was the teaching sidekick. This suited me, as I came late to university level teaching, working first as a research scientist in universities and then as a scientific computer programmer in the private sector. I did not have the conventional career trajectory of an academic employed in a tenured position at a university. We
moved to Ontario without having jobs to move into, but I was fortunate to be able to find work immediately at Carleton University as a laboratory supervisor. I was then offered contract instructor positions, and moved to teaching five one-semester Introductory Physics courses during the course of the year. To put this in perspective, this is the teaching load expected of a
full-time Instructor/Lecturer position, as defined in the Carleton faculty collective agreement. It would be extremely difficult to teach more than two of these courses in parallel—the workload would then be 50-60 hours per week. With my special-needs childcare commitments, this would be impossible. Nor would it be possible for me to take on a tenure-track position. The hours of work typically required to develop, fund, and launch a research program were more than I could actually devote to it. My ambition is more modest: to obtain a full-time instructor position and be able to develop better pedagogy for the teaching
of physics at the university level.
Most organizations are awash in data – too much of it. And as many have learned, the ability to make effective, fact-based decisions is not dependent on the amount of data you have. Success is based on your ability to discover more meaningful and predictive insights from all the data you capture.
That’s where predictive analytics and data mining come into play. Data mining looks for hidden patterns in your data that can be used to predict future behavior. Businesses, scientists and governments have used this approach for years to transform data into proactive insights. The same approach applies to business issues across virtually any industry.
Americans reaching traditional retirement ages during the past two decades and today face a different retirement environment than did prior cohorts. Mandatory retirement has been eliminated for the vast majority of American workers, and important work disincentives (or retirement incentives) in Social Security and in employer pension plans have been eliminated or reduced. Americans are living longer and healthier lives, fewer have physically arduous jobs, and technology has increased the options about where and when people work. In addition, the age of eligibility for ‘full’ Social Security retirement benefits has been increased from 65 to 66 (and will soon increase to 67), which is equivalent to an across-the-board benefit cut, and fewer firms are offering employer-sponsored post-retirement health insurance. There are concerns about the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Some of these changes are good news for older workers and some bad, but they all have altered the relative attractiveness of work and leisure late in life in favor of work.
Learning Study is a collaborative, action-research approach to improve the effectiveness of student learning by enhancing the professional competence of teachers. This is achieved through the collaborative construction of the pedagogical content knowledge enabling them better to teach specific objects of learning. Through inquiry and authentic learning by the teachers, it takes account of students’ prior knowledge in the lesson planning and so creates an authentic learning environment for the students. This paper explains how the Learning Study approach relates to the set of approaches known as “Lesson Study” and how it incorporates the principles for high quality learning proposed by the OECD project on Innovative Learning Environments (ILE) in its design and implementation. It examines how Learning Study helps to integrate the factors comprising innovative learning environments. It analyses the critical conditions that support its development and practice in schools and in professional learning networks and education systems in general.
We have seen considerable discussion in recent Inside Higher Ed articles about “Teaching Excellence”, whether at the individual or institutional levels. We know this concept can be problematic: a focus on Excellent Teaching can have negative side effects in promoting an individualistic and competitive environment.
I think we need to consider a shift in focus, from Excellent Teaching to Exemplary Teaching ‒ again, at both the individual and institutional levels. A focus on Exemplary Teaching could promote a collective outcome of surpassing past accomplishments in teaching and learning, by fostering professional teaching at the individual level and coopetition at the institutional level (i.e., “cooperation in creating value, competition in dividing it up”).
During the economic doldrums that have followed The Great Recession, employees in the education sector (administrators, staff, and teachers or faculty at both the K-12 level and the post-secondary level) are confident about both their retirement savings behavior and their likely retirement outcomes. African American and white American employees in the education sector are more optimistic about their retirement planning and prospects than are U.S. workers overall. Education sector employees—both African Americans (87%) and white Americans (88%)—are more likely than U.S. workers overall (59%) to currently save for retirement. This fact helps justify their greater confidence that they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement. Seven of every ten black American employees and seven of every ten white American employees are confident (‘very’ or ‘somewhat’) of this, while nearly half of all U.S. workers express this level of confidence.
The government of Ontario has signalled the need for Ontario’s publicly funded universities to seek additional productivity gains while sustaining access and quality in light of fiscal constraints. It has identified differentiation as a key policy driver to achieve these goals.
Implementation of these provincial directions likely involves consideration of how universities deploy their faculty to meet their differentiated teaching and research mandates. In fact, a preliminary examination by HEQCO of productivity in the Ontario public postsecondary system suggested that how universities deploy their faculty resources may be one of the most promising opportunities for universities to increase their productivity (HEQCO, 2012).
The use of data has produced a narrowing effect in education. It has caused schools to narrow the content we are teaching, focusing on key learning targets (e.g. Common Core State Standards). At the same time, it has caused us to narrow the students we are teaching. Since schools are evaluated by proficiency percentages, educators are using data to create categories of “green,” “yellow,” and “red” students, and diverting resources disproportionately toward “yellow” students as a means of boosting overall percentages. This commentary discusses the consequences of this phenomenon,
particularly on student
l systems to use data in a way that tracks growth rather than performance, in an effort to mitigate the triaging effect.
There is a growing body of research demonstrating that there have been major changes in the work and working conditions of university teachers in many countries over the last few decades. In some cases this has led to the increasing employment of non-full-time university instructors, and questions have been raised, especially in the United States, concerning the working conditions of part-time faculty and the implications of these changes on educational quality. The number of full-time faculty at Ontario universities has not increased at the same pace as the massive growth in student enrolment, raising questions about whether universities have employed non-full-time faculty in larger numbers and whether the balance between full-time and non-full-time instructors is changing. However, very little empirical research has been conducted on non-full-time instructors in Ontario. This study offers a preliminary exploration of the issue by addressing four key questions
College characteristics that may be associated with sexual victimization have become a salient topic in popular and
scholarly discourse. However, very little research has formally tested these relationships. Utilizing the Online College
Social Life Survey, a dataset that includes 22 schools and approximately 16,000 women respondents, a logit analysis is used
to measure relationships between risk of different types of sexual victimization (namely, attempted physically forced
intercourse, drug- and alcohol-facilitated sexual assault, physically forced intercourse, and unwanted sex because of verbal
pressure) and student body size, school-level sex ratio, school selectivity, the type of school (public or private), and the
percentage of students involved in Greek organizations on campus, all while controlling for individual-level characteristics
and clustering standard errors at the school level. Each additional thousand students enrolled increases the odds of a
physically forced rape by 2.47 times. The odds ratio for being a private institution ranges from .65 to .7, whereas percentage
Greek shows opposing associations with individual-level Greek membership for physically forced rape. All other variables
are statistically insignificant. These results suggest that institution-level factors play some role in the risk of sexual
victimization; future research should expand on these findings.
Labour market information (LMI) helps Canadians find information about jobs and labour market trends and outlooks.
LMI should allow employers to see who is available to recruit, what their skills are, where they are located and what kind of workers will be coming on stream, including via post-secondary education and immigration.
Developing leaders is an especially daunting task for higher education institutions. Like individuals working in professional service firms, academicsx are often ambivalent about assuming leadership roles. Their professional idenity and sense of satisfaction from work are derived pricipally from their professional expertise and accomplishments. They are not recruited for their leadership potential, but rather are selected andrewarded for their research, course development, and/or teaching.
Michael Skolnik
Although research on Canadian higher education has advanced considerably over the past few decades, the opportunities for university level study of higher education in Canada are still quite limited. Only four universities offer higher education programs; only one has a higher education department; and only a handful of other institutions offer even a course
in higher education. The number of students enrolled in higher education programs in Canada is about 200, compared to about 6,000 in the United States; the number of faculty about 15 compared to 700 in the U.S. Moreover, while American higher education journals have, since the early 1970's, regularly featured articles about university higher education programs, there has not been a single article on this subject in The Canadian Journal of Higher Education. This paper attempts to fill some of that gap by providing some basic information about the study of higher education in Canadian universities and by examining the role of these programs in the overall development of higher education research and the possible reasons for the very limited scale of such programs in Canada.
The author's conclusion is that the factor which has most limited the development of higher education studies in Canadian universities is neither insufficient student demand nor limited employment opportunities of graduates, but reluctance of Canadian universities to allocate resources for this area of study.
We in higher education now serve more students with more stress than ever before, yet we have done little to learn about the strategies to help them better manage it, argues Karen Costa.
The Ontario government has indicated its intention to negotiate individual mandate agreements with each of Ontario’s postsecondary institutions and to amend funding formulas to focus resources on what each institution does best. These actions signal the government’s desire to pursue a policy of greater institutional differentiation within the Ontario public postsecondary system. The purpose of this paper is to advance the conversation by examining differences among Ontario’s 24 colleges
on key variables related to programmatic diversity and participation in degree granting.
Charter schools, Teach For America, and the Knowledge Is Power Program may have their merits, but they are not whole-system reform. The latter is about improving every classroom, every school, and every district in the state, province, or country, not just some schools. The moral and political purpose of whole-system reform is ensuring that everyone will be affected for the better, starting on day one of implementing the strategy. The entire system should show positive, measurable results within two or three years. We have done this in Ontario, Canada, where we have had the opportunity since 2003 to implement new policies and practices across the system—all 4,000 elementary schools, 900 secondary schools, and the 72 districts that serve 2 million students. Following five years of stagnation and low morale, from 1998 to 2003, the impact of the new strategies has been dramatic: Higher-order literacy and numeracy have increased by 10 percentage points across the system; the high school graduation rate has risen 9 percentage points, from 68 percent to 77 percent; the morale o teachers and principals has improved; and the public’s confidence in the system is up.
This article examines the approach to teaching social skills in two kinds of colleges: community colleges, and private for-profit and nonprofit ‘‘occupational’’ colleges, with a focus on college credit programs that lead to applied associate’s degrees in a variety of business, health, computer, and technical occupational programs. Nearly all occupational faculty at both types of colleges believe that employers in these fields require certain social skills relevant to professional support occupations. Community college staff—with the exception of health programs—provide three reasons that they neither demand nor teach these social skills. In contrast, the ways in which private occupational colleges make these skills an explicit part of their curriculum is discussed. This study suggests that schools differ in whether they teach and cultivate social skills, which suggests a potentially important way that schools may shape students’ opportunities in the labor market and their social mobility. Contrary to Bowles and Gintis, these findings raise the disturbing possibility that community colleges may be actively contributing to the social reproduction of inequality by avoiding instruction in the cultural competencies and social skills required in today’s workplace
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.