On behalf of Universities Canada, Abacis cpmdicted amd extensive online nationwide study of Canadian's views of Universities.
The 2015 Campus Freedom Index is the fifth annual report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) to measure the state of free speech at Canada’s universities.
Starting with a survey of only 18 universities in 2011, this year’s edition has grown to include 55 publicly funded Canadian universities—the largest and most expansive Index released so far, with information relevant to the more than 750,000 students who attend these institutions. The 2015 Campus Freedom Index includes an individual report about each university and student union.
After increasing by 18% (in inflation-adjusted dollars) between 2007-08 and 2010-11, the total amount students borrowed
in federal and nonfederal education loans declined by 13% between 2010-11 and 2013-14. Growth in full-time equivalent
(FTE) postsecondary enrollment of 16% over the first three years, followed by a decline of 4% over the next three years, contributed to this pattern. However, borrowing per student, which rose by 2% between 2007-08 and 2010-11, declined by 9% over the most recent three years. The data in Trends in Student Aid 2014 provide details on these changes, as well as changes in grants and other forms of financial aid undergraduate and graduate students use to finance postsecondary education.
Cyberbullying Dealing with Online Meaness, Cruelty and Threats
Working while learning is now the accepted pathway to education and training for both young and mature working learners.
When working with aggregate data, it’s easy to lose sight of the voices and experiences of the people being studied. As part of the research for this report, the authors interviewed a number of actual working learners — some of whom were part of ACT’s working learner advisory council — and utilized their personal experiences and stories to illuminate the report and to develop policy proposals that would satisfy their needs. The following are some of the individuals who helped to provide insight into the lives of today’s working learners:
Work-integrated learning (WIL) has been identified as a key strategy for supporting Canada’s postsecondary education (PSE) system in responding to an increasingly dynamic, globalized, knowledge-based economy. Ontario in particular has been described as a “hot bed” of co-operative education (Ipsos Reid, 2010). However, while there is a common belief that WIL improves employment outcomes (see Gault, Redington & Schlager, 2000; Kramer & Usher, 2010), research on this topic has generally been specific to certain programs and types of WIL (Sattler, 2011).
In order to address this limited understanding of the impact of WIL on participants, employers and institutions, in 2009 the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) launched a multi-year project titled “Work-Integrated Learning in Ontario’s Postsecondary Education Sector.” This multi-stage study involved gathering qualitative and quantitative insights from faculty, employers and students on the perceived value and benefits of work and voluntary activities undertaken during a postsecondary program of study, both WIL and non-WIL, and examines the impact of these activities on learning, skills acquisition and labour market outcomes.
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 theoretical literature on intermediary bodies in higher education suggests that intermediary bodies are potentially useful actors in policy and administration. Many intermediary bodies were established to manage growth but in recent years have been reoriented to managing fixed or declining resources and flat or declining enrolments.
Top research colleges.
Even as the economy has at last begun to expand at a more rapid pace, growth in wages and benefits for most American workers has continued its decades-long stagnation. Real hourly wages of the median American worker were just 5 percent higher in 2013 than they were
in 1979, while the wages of the bottom decile of earners were 5 percent lower in 2013 than
in 1979.1 Trends since the early 2000s are even more pronounced. Inflation-adjusted wage growth from 2003 to 2013 was either flat or negative for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution.2 Compounding the problem of stagnating wages is the decline in employer-provided health insurance, with the share of non-elderly Americans receiving insurance from an employer falling from 67 percent in 2003 to 58.4 percent in 2013.
Post-secondary education is effectively a requirement to succeed in today’s labour market. Unfortunately, while the demand for education has increased, public funding has failed to keep up. Public funding shortfalls have resulted in a significant growth of costs that have been downloaded onto individual students, namely in the form of high tuition fees. From 1990 to 2014, national average tuition fees have seen an inflation-adjusted increase of over 155%. In Ontario, tuition fees have increased over 180%.
For most students—often having spent little time fully active in the workforce—funding their education has become increasingly difficult. Many students must now take on significant levels of debt to pay for their education. Students requiring a Canada Student Loan now graduate with an average debt of over $28,000.
Relying on debt to finance education means the full impact of high tuition fees is delayed until after graduation—when it is then compounded by interest. This impact is now exacerbated by the effects of the Great Recession and the rising trend of precarious, and even unpaid, employment. The broader effects of high levels of student debt on both the individual and the general economy are now becoming obvious:
Many countries strive to make postsecondary education maximally accessible to their citizens under the assumption that educated citizens boost innovation and leadership, resulting in social and economic benefits. However, attempts to increase access, especially in contexts of stagnant or diminishing financial support, can result in ever-increasing class sizes. Two aspects of large classes are extremely worrisome. First, economic and logistical constraints have led many such classes to devolve into settings characterized by lectures, readings and multiple-choice tests, thereby denying students experience and exercise with important transferable skills (e.g., critical thought, creative thought, self-reflective thought, expressive and receptive communication). Second, such classes are depicted as cold and impersonal, with little sense of community among students.
But there’s one question that we should all put down immediately, and rage against with the last shreds of our academic
freedom: the old refrain, "When am I going to use this?"
This question, I think, manages to embody the worst of our cultural situation. It is a complaint, a subterfuge, an insult, a lazy way out. And before you think I am simply railing against the generational deficiencies in our current crop of students, I’m not. I’ve heard versions of the theme from parents, administrators, politicians, and even, I am chagrined to add, esteemed colleagues. We must put an end to it all.
In recent years, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) has launched several studies that analyze and conceptualize the differentiation of the Ontario postsecondary education system (Weingarten & Deller, 2010; Hicks, Weingarten, Jonker & Liu, 2013; Weingarten, Hicks, Jonker & Liu, 2013). Similarly, in the summer of 2012, the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) initiated several projects to identify ways to drive innovation and improve the productivity of the postsecondary sector.
Within this context, in June 2013 HEQCO began to look at what it called ‘the proliferation of public policy schools.’ Anecdotally, there has been much discussion about the rise of public policy programs. Findings from a preliminary scan of existing graduate public policy programs and their establishment dates demonstrated that there has been a proliferation in the number of public policy programs in Canada, starting with Carleton University in 1953 and ending with the University of Calgary in 2011. In roughly the past decade, there has been a one-third increase in the number of such graduate programs. This trend mirrors what has happened elsewhere, in particular in the United States.
Background/Context: Much progress has been made toward a greater understanding of student engagement and its role in promoting a host of desirable outcomes, including academic outcomes such as higher achievement and reduced dropout, as well as various well-being and life outcomes. Nonetheless, disengagement in our schools is widespread. This may be due in part to a lack in the student engagement literature of a broad conceptual framework for understanding how students are engaged at the classroom level, and the ways in which teachers may play an active role in promoting student engagement.
Purpose: The present work seeks to summarize and synthesize the literature on student engagement, providing both a greater appreciation of its importance as well as a context for how it might be better understood at the classroom level. It considers how the primary elements of the classroom environment—the student, the teacher, and the content—interact to affect engagement, and proposes a conceptual framework (based on a previously established model of classroom instruction and learning) for understanding how student engagement may be promoted in the classroom.
Research Design: This study combines a review of the extant research on the structure and correlates of student engagement, with elements of an analytic essay addressing how selected literature on motivation and classroom instruction may be brought to bear on the understanding and promotion of student engagement in the classroom.
Conclusions/Recommendations: This article offers a variety of research-based practical suggestions for how the proposed conceptual model—which focuses on student–teacher relationships, the relevance of the content to the students, and teachers’ pedagogical and curricular competence—might be applied in classroom settings.
Grade 8 is a critical year for Ontario’s students. It is not only a pivotal point in a young person’s emotional, social, and physical development1, but also a time when students must choose between taking applied and academic courses in high school. These course selections largely determine students’ educational pathways throughout high school and have the poten-
tial to influence their post-secondary options and career opportunities2.
This report examines the gap between Ontario’s stated policy regarding students’ choices in high school and the reality on the ground. It looks at whether grade 8 students should be required to make decisions that have such important short and long term consequences in light of international evidence suggesting that it contributes to lower outcomes.
Probing the question of the effectiveness and applicability of outcomes-based funding policy for higher education in Ontario requires an approach that (1) reviews current research and policy literatures on this topic and (2) differentiates and contextualizes the knowledge available. In order to evaluate successful and unsuccessful policy features and institutional practices, it is important to take stock of current policies across varied provincial, state, regional and national contexts, as well as over time. The topic of outcomes-based funding has received considerable and continuing attention in the research and policy literatures, and syntheses of these are currently available (e.g., Dougherty & Reddy, 2011, 2013; Frøhlich, Schmidt & Rosa, 2010; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). However, a comprehensive policy-relevant perspective can only be a product of extended study that considers policy contexts internationally and provides an actionable, differentiated view on the research and policy in this area. This study will examine policy and research literature to address the following research questions:
As a minority group on university campuses, the unique needs of mature students can be easily
overlooked. It is important that the term “mature students” does not disguise the heterogeneity of this group: “…it
is erroneous to speak of ‘the adult learner’ as if there is a generic adult that can represent all adults.”1 However,
amongst this varied group of students, there are common concerns that they share. This policy sets out students’
priorities in increasing the visibility of mature students on campus as well as optimizing their educational
experience.
Mature students need more recognition of the different hurdles they face in achieving success. These can
include situational barriers like a lack of time, lack of money, health issues, or dependant care,2 as well as
attitudinal or dispositional barriers, including the fear of failure or alienation. Lastly, they also face systemic
barriers such as restrictive course offerings and availability of instructors or support services outside of regular
business hours.3
This paper uses the acronym “LGBTQ+” to refer to anyone who identifies as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Two-Spirit, Asexual, Pansexual, and other identities and sexualities that are not cisgender or heterosexual.
The terms “trans” and “transgender” are used interchangeably. The plus sign indicates the intention to recognize a diverse and fluid range of gender identities, gender expressions, and sexual orientations. Throughout the paper, the term “Queer” may be
used interchangeably with “LGBTQ+.”
Though the term MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Genders, and Intersex) has been offered as an alternative to LGBTQ+, this paper opts for the latter term because it, currently, is more widely recognizable. As language and nomenclature continue to
evolve, this terminology choice may be revisited.
Canada needs skills of all kinds to remain competitive in the global economy. Today’s students are the workforce of tomorrow, and their education will shape Canada’s future prosperity. Graduates across all disciplines are reaping the rewards of a university education. They’re armed with the hands-on learning experience, entrepreneurial spirit and interdisciplinary skills that will help them succeed in an evolving labour market.
Universities offer innovative and diverse learning experiences that equip students to adapt, collaborate, lead and learn throughout their lives, and they can do even more with the partnership and commitment of the government and private sector.
Studying and working abroad transforms Canadian students into global citizens, helping them develop inter-cultural awareness, adaptability and problem-solving skills. It also gives them a hiring edge with today’s employers. Leaving one’s home province to study can also be a transformative experience, increasing students’ understanding of the diverse cultures, histories and values that make up our country.
Whether learning abroad or in another province, these experiences deepen students’ awareness of the diversity of Canadian and international communities, while strengthening bonds between campuses across Canada and worldwide.
Too few Canadian students, however, benefit from the mobility experiences that can prepare them to enter a globalized labour market. Improving the international and interprovincial mobility of university students is a crucial step in developing our next generation of leaders and sharpening Canada’s competitive edge.