A slow news day

on the PSE front — Kelly Lamrock, Shawn Graham and their one-legged Frankenstein-monster education plan are hogging all the bandwidth — so have raided Facebook and publish for you here some texts collected by Greg Marquis:

Supreme Court of Canada on universities:

This is from the decision Mckinney vs. University of Guelph, [1990] 2 SCR 229:

“The universities are legally autonomous. They are not organs of government even though their scope of action is limited either by regulation or because of their dependence on government funds. Each has its own governing body, manages its own affairs, allocates its funds and pursues its own goals within the legislated limitations of its incorporation. Each is its own master with respect to the employment of professors. The government has no legal power to control them. Their legal autonomy is fully buttressed by their traditional position in society. Any attempt by government to influence university decisions, especially decisions regarding appointment, tenure and dismissal of academic staff, would be strenuously resisted by the universities on the basis that this could lead to breaches of academic freedom.”

Greg also points towards the excellent mission statement of the University of Toronto — a model for all others and apparently now affixed to various office doors at UNBSJ — as well as the International Association of Universities policy statement, “Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility” (1998) which begins

Recalling that at the International Conference convened by UNESCO in 1950, in Nice, the Universities of the World stipulated three indissociable principles for which every university should stand, namely:

the right to pursue knowledge for its own sake and to follow wherever the search for truth may lead;

the tolerance of divergent opinion and freedom from political interference;

the obligation as social institutions to promote, through teaching and research, the principles of freedom and justice, of human dignity and solidarity, and to develop mutually material and moral aid on an international level.

and goes on “to reaffirm these principles and to redefine their implications within the framework of a new Social Contract which sets out mutual responsibilities, rights and obligations between University and Society so that they may meet the challenges of the new Millennium.”

 

Dale Kirby,

in his blog, notes that the Canadian Council for Learning recently released its annual report. He notes the following sections:

PSE attainment in Canada increased to almost 66% in 2006 (for those aged 25 to 34). However, young adults who do not pursue PSE are at risk of economic and social marginalization. They are more likely to experience low income, unemployment, poor health and less job satisfaction than young adults who acquire further education and skills.

University tuition costs have risen an average of 44% over the decade ending in 2006. Student debt-load has more than doubled since 1990, representing an additional economic barrier to PSE participation.

Though apprenticeship registrations, and to a lesser degree, completions are growing, the under-representation of women in apprenticeship programs is of particular concern. Apprenticeship training provides an important and effective route to the skilled workplace and is linked to smoother school-to-work transitions, and lower levels and fewer periods of unemployment. A key ingredient in their success is the involvement of employers who are in a position to match skills to job demands.

The third paragraph here alludes to a significant problem with both the original Miner/L’Écuyer report, and the provincial government’s “action plan”: gender issues. Any decrease in access to university education, whether by re-organization or selective funding, disadvantages women in particular.

 

Every morning

I check canadaeast.com for news and opinions, and this morning was no different. Except that it was. Rather than the expected array of stories about the “win-win” Irving plan for the long wharf and anxious letters about the scary pro-union views of our new mayor, there were instead a series of feel-good stories about, um, “being in this place.” Well, far be it from me to rain on anyone’s New Brunswick day parade — the weather itself is doing a good job of that — so I thought I might eschew the usual critical tone of much of what I write here and leave a dissection of what the T-J thinks a paper should do or the irony of criticizing other jurisdictions for their environmental practices aside for at least one post.

So what is left?

How about why we are fighting so hard for the integrity of higher education in this province?

Much too long for a blog post; that would turn into an essay, or even a book or two. But perhaps an initial swat at making a partial list, which can be added to in the comments.

Why we are fighting:

• Because under neoliberal capitalism, universities are among the very few places where there is still anything approaching freedom of speech, however muzzled it may be.
• Because New Brunswick, given its size, resource-based economy and patterns of ownership, is in particular need of such places.
• Because in a small, so-called “have-not” province, educational opportunities — real educational opportunities — are particularly important.
• Because there need to be spaces outside the cash-nexus, the marketplace, in order for a culture to be viable.
• Because with our small campuses we really do have an opportunity to provide “student-focused education.”
• Because our students deserve more than to be treated as cogs in the machine.
• Because we think our students should be allowed to choose their own paths.
• Because we take the long view.
• Because though many of us working in the universities come from away, this is our home now and we want to stay here.
• Because if someone reading this disagrees with any of it, that’s cool, but isn’t it good that we can have the conversation?

 

The student view

Jay Rawding, UNBSJ student and recipient of the Sir Howard Douglas Medal (2008) for scholastic achievement (Dean’s List) and extra-curricular activities, suggests that the real problem for students is a lack of opportunity for meaningful careers in New Brunswick, not the quality of education received at our universities.  See “N.B. Must Offer Students Careers,” (Telegraph Journal 18 July 2008).

 

New terminology, same old rhetoric in TJ Editorial

The editors at the TJ have risen from their collective stupor and delivered a one-two punch to the university community on the pretence of defending the public interest in PSE (Freedom and responsibility 16 Jul 2008). Now that is a leap in logic, as they like to put it.

Beginning with an inflammatory and inaccurate allegation: “Freedom and accountability have become buzzwords” they proceed to statements such as “It sounds as though universities won’t settle for anything less than a blank cheque.”

A sarcastic response would go something like: “Where the hell is the money, never mind the blank cheque?”

The probability is that some artful financing is in the works, for example, the plan to convert Saint John College into an IALT under the auspices of UNBSJ. This arrangement would, we are told, divert monies earned from providing local businesses non-credit programs into UNBSJ coffers, but given the government’s miserliness in PSE these very riches (which would ebb and flow with the local economy) could be our undoing. Why would UNBSJ receive more baseline government funding if existing funds could be supplemented with those earned through the IALT? For all the promises of a more equitable funding formula, it is conceivable that this private-public partnership would undermine efforts to put UNBSJ on a firm financial footing, on par with public funding for other universities in the province.

Moving on, could anyone please tell me exactly what the Liberal version of being “accountable on an administrative level” is, and how “That’s a far cry from policing what professors say.”

Yeah, yeah, I know the government wants five-year strategic plans and a curtsey from the presidents annually, but what does that really mean?
Does it mean:

• That only programs that are teaming with students and/or demonstrably linked to the political and economic vitality of the province be funded?

If so, does that mean that ecommerce programs will have to retool so as to focus on e-porn - one of the most successful businesses online? Or perhaps, BBA students should major in online scams, online fraud, online crime, or… casino management-another, apparently, major economic initiative in the province.

• That programs offered elsewhere in the province, in the region, in the country, in the world! need not be duplicated here-since doing so would mean that New Brunswickers (and, I repeat, the taxpayers of Canada) would be wasting money on PSE that could be accessed elsewhere-or online.

Why waste time teaching 18th century philosophy, or the humanities in general? Who needs it? Moreover, anyone with a yen for such esoteric stuff can access it by going off to one of those “elite” universities that other governments have the luxury of funding, or through E-Education-the next brave new world.

• That the government really means it intends to “cut the fat” at the administrative level-since now the emphasis has shifted away from the “fat cat” professors to the “fat cat” administration. I’m being sarcastic of course since the government loves bureaucracy and intends to add layers of new bureaucracy/administration to the PSE system.

But lets face facts, the TJ does perhaps speak for some out there who think that the university is simply a haven for people who couldn’t make it in the “real” world and that those ill-equipped people are over paid for being square pegs in round holes. While some individuals have no trouble defending their income-for example, physicians who are in short supply in this province, or accountants and lawyers whose billable hours are the stuff of legend, or engineers who are needed to design the hydra-like New Brunswick transportation network or nuclear power plants-but how do individuals whose work is ridiculed as useless defend receiving a paycheque at all? I can only say that it is common knowledge that salaries at Maritime universities are lower than those elsewhere in Canada, but that probably doesn’t appease the critics who will counter with but the cost of living is lower. I’m pretty sure that our administrators are also paid less than those “out west” as well, but that is a matter of conjecture since UNB did not provide that information to MacLean’s for its annual university issue.

The terminology used by the editors suggests they recognize that education is an investment rather than an expense, but their comments betray the fact that their views have not changed with the terminology: For example,

“New Brunswickers aren’t funding universities as charity thinktanks. They’re trying to create stronger communities and economic opportunities.” [and] “Being accountable means justifying the ongoing public investment. Has public funding helped New Brunswickers secure meaningful careers? Has it generated research that extends public knowledge or produces tangible benefits? Are graduates as skilled as their peers elsewhere? If not, what are administrators going to do about it?”

Our universities are open to all takers-those from New Brunswick, the region, the nation and beyond-and this is the nature of all Canadian universities. And this is how it should be.

Aside from the principle of universal access, Canadian taxes pay for much of what goes on in our universities and so it is that they are open, public institutions.

That students leave universities to go on to “meaningful careers” has been well established. That New Brunswick universities are charged with ensuring New Brunswick students graduate to meaningful careers is an entirely different matter and is not commensurate with university mandates elsewhere. Is it the responsibility of Dalhousie to ensure that Nova Scotian students obtain meaningful careers? McGill to ensure Quebec students obtain meaningful careers? University of Toronto to ensure Ontario students obtain meaningful careers? You get the drift.

Moreover, what the H E double hockey sticks do the editors mean when asking “Are graduates as skilled as their peers elsewhere?” Of course there are skills learned (or improved upon) at university-reading and writing being prime examples. In the main, however, we are about thinking. This is not about charity. Thinking is key to the human condition.

They also ask “Are graduates as skilled as their peers elsewhere?”
Some are, some aren’t and the same could be said in the reverse. I suppose this particular question could be applied to some of the applied programs, for example engineering and nursing, but for most of us at the university skills training is not our niche. Moreover, where skills training is an issue, accreditation by external, self-governing bodies (eg. Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the Canadian Bar Association) is a key determinant of standards.

The TJ conveys the notion that universities are completely independent agents, responsible to none, behaving arbitrarily. This is simply not true and the editors should cease and desist from perpetrating such inaccuracies.

 

And lastly… Doherty finally finds his voice

Given how Kelly Lamrock is “handling” the EFI issue, it might be that silence is the best strategy — from the perspective of a political party that thinks it might get a second chance at governing. Constituents begged to differ last fall, however — as they were destined to lose a university and our MLAs were curiously silent hoping, no doubt, that the pesky issue of UNBSJ would just go away.

I guess Minister Doherty now thinks its safe to speak. It’s almost 12 months since he was called to task by hundreds (thousands?) of citizens (i.e. voters) on the stoop of his uptown constituency office, and he has spoken loudly, if not clearly, about the resolve of his department to proceed full speed ahead with implementing the “Action Plan.” In “‘It’s time for action’; Education No more consultation, post-secondary plans are final, says minister in charge ” (Telegraph-Journal , 15 Jul 2008, Megan O’Toole) Doherty confirmed that the government intends to begin putting into effect some of the recommendations made by the presidents and principals committee, including program review, clarifying the “roles, missions and mandates” of the public universities — but the government will not increase funding to the extent recommended by the experts on this committee. So… no money, but lots of change — and no more debate.

I beg to differ. At this point, if the government is adhering to the timeline established by the Presidents and Principals, the process of reviewing the various university acts has begun and the department of PSE has sent its request to the department of justice for a draft(s) of the new legislation (see “Stages of a Public Bill,” Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick).

Once Justice has drafted the bill, it is returned to the minister who takes it to caucus for discussion. It would seem to me that since the politicians are debating the merits of the proposed changes, they should take into account the views of the people of New Brunswick — especially if people have concerns about the consequences of tinkering with the mission and mandate of their public universities.

I, for one, have several concerns about what a government that sees PSE as subservient to its political agenda might do to the acts. Why can’t the Liberals see that our universities have a mission, and that they must, continue in the pursuit of knowledge free from government control, as do other “real” universities in this nation. There is constantly talk in this province about meeting national and international standards; check out the mission statement of the University of Toronto and ask how we’ll compare once the politicians are done with us. Will we be able to claim, as does the U of T, that:

Within the unique university context, the most crucial of all human rights are the rights of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of research. And we affirm that these rights are meaningless unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and of the university itself.

 

The Ying and the Yang in T-J “Letters to the Editor”

Two interesting takes on the PSE debate today. On the one hand, a letter by Greg Cook takes the editorial board to task over lack of due diligence in researching PSE, and on the other, a letter by Thomas Baxter offers an unusual history of “the university.” Baxter states:

Professors boast about their independence and about how this independence has benefitted society, but this independence was from the outset intended to be conditional on faithful allegiance to founding standards.

Universities were founded by churches or by godly Christian businessmen, and then passed to the public domain on the condition that the standards of righteous living be upheld in the lives of professors, the teaching and the examination of students. Instead, since the 1960s under the guise of academic freedom many professors have taught students to be immoral, and many students have drifted far from their upbringing while at university.

It is true that a number of universities did have their origins in the medieval church and closer to home in religious denominations such as Baptist (eg. Acadia) and Roman Catholicism (eg. St Thomas University) — but the founders of the University of New Brunswick eschewed religious denominationalism in favour of ideals following the “1754 Charter of King’s College, New York, urging that the college never “‘exclude or restrain any Person . . . of any religious Denomination, Sect, or Profession . . . from equal . . . Liberties, Privileges, [or] Degrees” ‘- a very liberal notion in the eighteenth century.” Moreover, Mr Baxter has simplified how (some?) universities were transfered from “godly Christian businessmen” to the public domain in exchange for adherence to certain Christian standards both in the classroom and elsewhere. Things were much more complicated than he suggests, and many universities, including UNBSJ and that in his own hometown (I.e. Lakehead) were created in the 1960s as secular institutions. This does not mean such institutions have no moral compass. Quite the contrary, but they do not have a Christian moral compass. Nor should they as public institutions must conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

When Baxter states that: “under the guise of academic freedom many professors have taught students to be immoral, and many students have drifted far from their upbringing while at university,” and that “Independent peer review has failed to police depraved behaviour, and has failed uphold [sic] independence and opportunity for those who have stood for such standards,” he goes too far. Moreover, if Mr Baxter was functioning within the framework of “academic freedom” he would be obliged to present a case based on research, not unfounded opinion.

 

A “dramatic” opinion expressed on universities by the editors at the TJ

Well, in less than 400 words the editorial board at the TJ thinks it has summed up and shown the case against the Libs’ “Action Plan” as illogical. Yes, that’s how it’s done all right.

Let’s begin with the allegation that AUNBT bases its case on an “appeal to tradition: universities have always been run this way and always must be.”

In fact, in New Brunswick, like elsewhere in the western world, universities have changed markedly in the last 125 years. Why, we now have women in the classroom and women behind the lectern. There are also people of colour and aboriginal people in the same places studying subjects that were not offered traditionally. It’s been some time since universities expanded beyond the law and religion to offer science and the professions-to a diverse student body. The fact that there is a university in Saint John is also indicative of the way in which universities have changed. Many cities in Canada and the United States witnessed the expansion of opportunities in post-secondary education during the 1960s. The editors have not done their homework… but then doing so would not allow them to generalize and make unfounded conclusions.

Next the editors move on to “the appeal to fear: if universities have to draw up five-year strategic plans and meet performance targets, students and professors will leave, and the universities will start to collapse.”

Talk about hyperbole and faulty logic! It seems that the editors at the TJ are ill informed about how universities work - at least how institutions that aspire to be recognized as universities work. As indicated in the AUNBT position paper, the Supreme Court of Canada has deliberated on, and confirmed, the necessity of autonomy and academic freedom to the very identity of a university. Apparently, the views of the Supreme Court are of no consequence to the editors at the TJ. There is no doubt that the buildings will remain - and it will probably appear as if the post-Action Plan institutions are the same as those we have today - but they will be very different and it is uncertain whether they will be recognized as universities by the constituencies that allocate research monies to university faculty, hire university graduates, or accredit professional programs. Will faculty and students leave? Some will, some won’t. Will those who remain have access to the same kind of education that other Canadians have? No.

Taking the easy route, the editors then state that faculty “appeal to emotion: universities are under attack - save UNBSJ/UNB/STU/UdeM/Mount A! “

I, for one, don’t recall any university other than UNBSJ being under attack. I saw no evidence of faculty at UNBF or STU or MtA mounting a SAVE UNBF campaign etc. Moreover, the editors are dismissing the very real threat to the existence of UNBSJ by insinuating that faculty at all New Brunswick institutions saw their institutions as at risk. In any event, the AUNBT position paper does not mention any institution but UNB by name.

And then, without a shred of evidence, the editors state: “Faculty seem to be confusing cause with effect. New Brunswick’s universities are already collapsing, which is why the government has gotten involved.
Public universities are suffering from declining enrolment, tens of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance, and programs that aren’t always nationally competitive. For students, the results have been abysmal.”

Since when do the ebbs and flows of running an institutions signal imminent collapse? I cannot comment on the situation at all New Brunswick universities, or the views of all NB graduates, but I doubt that they see their experience as “abysmal.” My son, for example, completed a BA at UNB and has a job he enjoys, at a competitive salary-in Calgary! Perhaps if there is dissatisfaction among students it has less to do with their studies at “the university” than it does with the fact that they borrow heavily to attend university and then, if they stay in this province, they can’t get a job that will allow them to repay these loans and still have a decent standard of living. Perhaps the TJ would like to do some investigative reporting on what really happens to the graduates of our PSE system regardless of what institution of higher learning is attended. What are the enrolment stats at NBCC? MtA? and so on… These numbers are usually available online - at least for the universities which are more transparent in their behaviour than some would have us believe. It just takes some digging to find the info.

Real research might also be advised before waxing poetic on the “poor results” of our university system. Everyone wants to talk about accountability and quality assurance, but when it comes to actually following their own dicta, the editors at the TJ fall short. Again, there is a mountain of info measuring the accomplishments of our universities-especially on the accomplishments of faculty, some of whom do work on arcane topics, but then where would Jack Keir and Co. be if Albert Einstein hadn’t had a series of academic appointments allowing him to “be” the theoretical genius who developed mathematical models to predict the behaviour of subatomic particles. Interestingly enough Princeton University employed Einstein for some 25 years while he worked on the Unified Field Theory, or as some have called it, the theory of everything. He produced a number of formula, but the experimental proof needed to validate them still eludes scientists - many of whom are employed by universities to continue the work begun by Einstein. Twenty-five years and counting with no practical results! I’d like to think that this type of research–whether in theoretical physics or Early English literature, for example, could be pursued at our universities.

Well, you say, not all academics are Albert Einstein. No kidding. But it is only through having the freedom to pursue research, unfettered by the demands of the state, that academics have the potential to aspire to similar accomplishments. By the way, Einstein had to combat the anti-intellectual forces of the day, defending his theories against nay-sayers, and ultimately leaving his homeland when the National Socialist Party came to power.

Perhaps now I’m being dramatic, but then that is what is required when conversing with the editors of the TJ .

 

Post-Secondary Education back on the front page

How do the faculty at UNB (F & SJ) feel about the Liberals “Action Plan” for PSE?  See Megan O’Toole, “Profs Pummel Plan” on page one of the Telegraph Journal to find out.

 

An Eloquent Reponse to the “Action Plan” from STU faculty member

who knows what he’s talking about since he has first-hand knowledge of how an over-bureaucratized state controlled post-secondary education system works.

Back in the U.S.S.R.?

This was my first thought upon reading the Action Plan to Transform Post- Secondary Education in New Brunswick. Only recently, during my last year visits to Russia and Ukraine, I proudly explained to local professors the advantages of the western system of higher education, based on the principles of academic freedom, organizational autonomy, peer review and professional accountability. How profoundly this system differs from the Soviet system of petty bureaucratic control, whereby each syllabus, each course offering and each degree requirement had to be approved by an anonymous desk officer of the Ministry of Higher Education, an officer who had never had an academic job himself!

It seems the advantages of the western system of higher education, which has been called “liberal” for some reason, now seemingly forgotten in our province, are totally lost on the drafters of the Action Plan. They miss the laurels of the state planners of the bygone Soviet era. They want to fix the problem by creating several more institutions of the government and making universities report to the bureaucrats. They want professors to comply to the performance standards which will be drafted by those who never taught a university-level course. They want to make courses and degrees transferable by the executive order. Replace professional accountability with bureaucratic accountability. Remove regulation of the community colleges, while imposing a regulation burden more typical of a third-world society on the universities.

I have a feeling of deja vu. We are back in the U.S.S.R. I want to remind the drafters that the Soviet system of education, while putting the first man into space, has also subjugated the whole of Soviet society to 70-something years of rule by despots, semi-literates and ignorant mediocrities who, among their other achievements, have sunk the economy of one of the richest nations in the world. Incidentally, they finished by dissolving the country and putting themselves out of jobs. A befitting finale for the government-controlled system of higher education.

Read the rest of Mikhail A. Molchanov’s “Graham’s PSE plan would be a Soviet disaster,” Telegraph-Journal (July 8/08).

 

Monte Solberg slams the provincial Liberals

on their claims that the federal government is short-changing the province, er I’m sure the Liberals mean the feds are short-changing the students of this province, by discontinuing the Millennium Scholarship Fund. As Solberg states in his letter to the Times & Transcript,

In fact, New Brunswick students are expected to receive $8 million from the new Canada Student Grant Program. And this will be targeted to lower and middle income students who need help the most.

The difference is this funding will go directly to the students rather than flowing through the provincial treasury. In addition, students who currently receive Millennium Scholarship Foundation funding will receive a transition grant to ensure they continue to receive the same level of funding.

For good measure, Solberg adds:

In the past two years, the federal government has announced the most important reforms to student financial assistance and support to students in a generation.

We want every Canadian to know that if they want to go on to post-secondary education — whether it be a trade school, a college, or university — they now have the chance.

I guess he’s on to the Liberals too, and has no intention of letting them take credit for federal efforts on behalf of students.

 

AUNBT assesses the Liberal “Action Plan”

UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY ON THE LINE

AUNBT’s Response to the “Action Plan to Transform Post-Secondary Education in New Brunswick”

After fifteen months’ turmoil over the shape of post-secondary education in New Brunswick, are we better or worse-off than before this process began? Should UNB’s partisans be heartened or dismayed by the Action Plan that the province released on 26 June? Compared with the hopeful spirit in which UNB pressed the new Liberal government for an inquiry into post-secondary education, the result is disappointing. Conceived and promoted with the faith that any inquiry into the state of NB universities must inevitably recommend greater financial support, of which the province’s flagship university would be the chief beneficiary, the post-secondary process has left UNB with modest funding gains. For this we are to pay a heavy price. The PSE inquiry has become the occasion when New Brunswick’s public universities have given up their autonomy. In parts of the Presidents’ and Principals’ Report [P & P] that were adopted without demur in the province’s Action Plan, the presidents concede that universities will now align their priorities with the shifting enthusiasms of politicians, bureaucrats and corporations. What they asked in return was that politicians fund the universities adequately. Government accepted their surrender, while committing to higher education just one-fifth of the funding sought. In return for these few new millions the great principle of university autonomy has been lost.

But is not the saving of UNB Saint John cause for rejoicing? If submitting to servitude in order to escape destruction amounts to a victory, then the victory is a very modest one. Success in deterring politicians from a course of plain folly hardly redeems the PSE process for UNB. Readers of the P & P Report, from which the province’s Action Plan is largely drawn, will be dismayed to find higher education valued solely in terms of meeting the needs of the provincial economy. This human capital approach frames education as an instrumental learning process, where students are provided with technical skills necessary for labour market participation. From such a perspective graduates are “products”. The only “transformative change” the P & P Report understands is the more effective training of workers for jobs. Ironically, neither the P & P Report nor the province’s Action Plan, both touted as “student-focussed”, offers a single word in celebration of the sort of “transformative change” that study at university brings the individual. The Action Plan also shows no appreciation that, to sustain its reputation as a “national university”, UNB must have a research environment that is competitive nationally and internationally. In every other province, governments recognize that high quality, independent research is necessary to a modern economy.

 

Ideological differences characterize new phase of PSE debate

Robert MacLeod, President of the PC Party of NB, voices his concern about the Liberals’ plans for post-secondary education in “Where is the ‘action’ in PSE plan?” (TJ, 5 July 2008). Not too surprisingly, his criticisms reflect PC views on the role of government and how the PC’s would do things differently from the Liberals.

Some of his suggestions are reasonable, others are not. When, for example, he points out that the 33 recommendations are disappointing, especially because they will produce little more than costly bureaucratic growth when much of what the government wants to achieve along those lines “could be done by the universities and colleges without government interference” he is on the money. At the same time, he is of the view that 3P’s are a good thing and that some post-secondary education funding should be allocated to institutions that successfully form such partnerships. Similarly, he advocates making some post-secondary funding equally “contingent” on institutional cooperation between community colleges and universities. Those offering successful joint programs would be eligible for funds from a designated pool — no doubt funds extracted from the existing bugetary allocations!

Now, it would seem that politicians would like to make others, in this case, universities and colleges, abide by rules they would not want to follow themselves. In other words, too bad there aren’t stricter rules and regulations for the spending of federal transfer monies to the province. If the provincial government allocated the social transfer payments so as to ensure that New Brunswickers had access to the same level of educational (and health) services as found elsewhere in Canada (with the exception of Alberta and BC which provides superior services to their citizenry) then much of the fancy footwork taking place (i.e. the PSE Review) would be unnecessary. Instead, we get the Liberals trying to “find savings” in education and health — see the latest reorganization of health and cuts in French language instruction, in addition to the maneuvering in post-secondary–and the PC’s telling the Libs how to use government funding (i.e. federal monies) to make things happen.

The level of political debate in this province is truly discouraging.

 

PSE funding: where does it come from?

As pointed out by Greg Cook (T-J 4 July 2008), the Liberal spin-doctors are hard at work putting the best face on a dismal picture when it comes to funding post-secondary education, one of the “public services” guaranteed all Canadians, regardless of where they live, under the Equalization Program.

Universities get help from Ottawa

Your editorial, “PSE: Not Math, But Vision” (July 1), reads: “New Brunswick’s public universities receive about $200 million a year in provincial funding.” This statement perpetuates the myth that university funding comes solely out of the pockets of New Brunswick taxpayers.

Your readers deserve to be reminded that the $200 million comes to New Brunswick out of an allotment of all Canadians’ federal taxes. This includes from the pockets of taxpayers in Alberta, for example.

The reminder is critically important if your editorials and the provincial Liberal government’s campaign slogan are continually touting “self-sufficiency” as the future.

It is time to do the math to clear the vision of whatever this slogan means.

Here’s the provincial statement on equalization:

What is the Equalization Program?

• The principle of making equalization payments is written in section 36(2) of The Constitution Act, 1982:

“Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.”

• The purpose of the Equalization Program is to make sure provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide similar levels of public services and taxation to their citizens.
• All federal taxpayers contribute to Equalization, no matter where they live in Canada.
• Today, 8 out of 10 provinces receive equalization payments.

Why is Equalization important to New Brunswickers?

• Equalization is NB’s largest revenue source at $1.4 billion or 22.9% of total revenue.
• To put this into perspective:

- The New Brunswick government will spend approximately $1.3 billion on education in 2006-
2007
- Revenues from provincial personal and corporate income taxes total approximately
$1.3 billion

• Without Equalization, New Brunswickers would face higher taxes and fewer public services. This would have a negative impact on the province’s competitiveness.

(source)

Here’s the graph the feds use to show why equalization is needed. See where the maritime provinces sit as of 1999. Newfoundland has renegotiated its place in the payments program as a result of new revenues, and (according to recent media reports) the economy of Saskatchewan is booming no less than Alberta, but the provinces of PEI, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick are no less reliant on EP to provide services than they were in 1999.

Source: Finance Canada, “Minister of Finance Tables Legislation to Renew the Equalization Program,” News Release, 2 February 1999.

Public schooling, PSE, Health Care and a host of other services are (theoretically) available at the same level as found elsewhere — although it is clear that education in NB is not funded as well as it is in provinces west of our border- — because of EP.

One last (unoriginal and gratuitous) comment. As the New Brunswick government contemplates tax reform, and if the tax base diminishes due to demographic changes resulting in fewer taxpayers, it is conceivable that the percentage of provincial revenues will rely even more heavily on EP — how ironic given that the LIberals promise self-sufficiency by 2026.

 

Clarification needed on what programs will be offered in the new “autonomous” community colleges

Is it my imagination, or was the debate taking place over the past year regarding the future of NBCC about providing increased access to trades training in New Brunswick, specifically in the greater Saint John area?

Am I alone in having missed the part about how trades apprenticeships were to continue under the control of the various contractors associations (see “Industry wants trades training out of colleges,” TJ, 3 July 20008). Apparently, in the past, NBCC did oversee apprenticeships but there were, according to Gary Ritchie of the NB Building Construction and Trades Council, “all kinds of problems.”

I thought that the new and improved CC system would be tasked with working through any problems that might have existed so as to streamline programs, making them cheaper, and hence, more accessible to students.

I thought making the trades more accessible to more students was what people such as Pat Darrah meant when they advocated changes to PSE and certainly, the government has risen to the challenge with its promise to add 12,000 new CC spaces in the trades, health sciences, and engineering technologies.

In fact, the government has made some progress in increasing accessibility already by making welding available as a NBCC program, rather than as a contracted out program offered on NBCC facilities. As a government funded and staffed program, welding is now available to students at $2600 per year, whereas in the past when welding was offered by contractually employed instructors, the tuition varied from $11,000 to $13,000 per year. Moving away from a semi-privatized system of offering trades instruction has reduced tuition by 75%. This is a move in the right direction and students should have access to other trades at comparable rates.

If increased access–both in terms of increased enrolments and decreased tuition–to training wasn’t what the debate over NBCC was about, could someone please tell me what it was about.

 

And Matt McCann strikes again…

There is an enlightening piece in the Daily Gleaner about how the Liberal action plan will undermine the autonomy of our public universities. David Bell, president of AUNBT, suggests the Premier doesn’t really get the whole concept of university autonomy (and hence academic freedom) and he’s right. He, along with Dennis Deroches of FAUST and Janice Harvey of the Conservation Council (who participated in the weekly political discussion on CBC, Friday 27 June) see through the Liberals thinly veiled efforts to subvert post-secondary education to a political agenda. I don’t think I need to provide historical examples (although who couldn’t since the 20th century is rife with such examples) of what happens when a government takes control of institutions of higher learning.

 

The dangers that lurk in privatizing post-secondary education

Here’s to the T-J. An informative piece on the perils of private post-secondary education in New Brunswick — and elsewhere. A cautionary tale…

from “Province urged to keep post-secondary private schools in line,” Matt McCann, Telegraph-Journal (June 30/08):

Private post-secondary institutions in the province need to have stricter rules in order to protect students, say the heads of New Brunswick’s public post-secondary schools.

The recommendation is part of their response to the original post-secondary education report, released in 2007, and a prelude to the Graham government’s final plan to reconstruct the province’s post-secondary education system.

The summary of the government’s action plan, released last Thursday, acknowledges and calls for an assurance of quality of private post-secondary schools in the province, but in the actual action plan itself, calls only for changes to the process for community colleges, leaving out private institutions.

The working group’s insistence that private schools be subject to a quality review by the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission comes on the heels of the May announcement that the newest one, Meritus University, had finally been given degree-granting status.

Meritus’ publicly traded parent company the Apollo Group, however, has a past that would appear somewhat less than deserving of merit.

…

Ryan Donaghy, a spokesman for Business New Brunswick, said the department was aware of Apollo’s checkered past, but that the department evaluated it on its business plan only.

“We believe they’re going to be a very successful company, and a strong business in the New Brunswick community,” he said.

In fact, he said, BNB had been actively pursuing Apollo for about five years.

…

Apollo’s American schools have also been investigated based on complaints from students, citing concerns about the quality of education.

[Louise] Boudreau [spokesperson, department of post-secondary education] said the department also knew about Apollo’s legal troubles, but said there was no ethical dilemma.

“It only factored in, in the sense that we looked at that and evaluated whether that was a risk for us,” she said. “We put them through the quality process that we have here and they met all the requirements.”

 

A double header in the T-J today

I think all the bases have been covered: Cook offers a critique of the idea that universities should provide training rather than an education, and Gagnon points out how the government has scapegoated the universities and colleges, blaming them for not doing their (alleged) jobs in an attempt to divert our attention away from the fact that many New Brunswickers are being left behind as the so-called boom takes place.

From “Province needs more high-paying jobs,” Larry Gagnon, Telegraph-Journal (Jun 25/08, A6):

If Doherty and Liberals want to bring the province to self-sufficiency by 2026 they had better refocus their gaze on the other half of the minister’s portfolio: “labour.” New Brunswickers deserve better. Those high-paying, desirable jobs that they should be preparing New Brunswickers to step into do not exist.

“Remember focus of higher education,” Greg Cook, Telegraph-Journal (Jun 25/08, A6):

Throughout the post-secondary education debate over the past 10 months Dr. Ed Doherty has sounded like the warden of a minimum security institution instead of the minister responsible for the province’s universities. He whines on about keeping students at home, or “down on the farm,” as the cliché goes.

The purpose of university education is not to produce labourers, but to prepare young people to be world citizens. A John Peters Humphrey, David Adams Richards, Gordon Fairweather, Erminie Cohen, Herménégilde Chiasson, and Antonine Maillet, among others, are examples of what a university does for students.

And then a graduate has something to say about efforts to keep New Brunswickers employed…

From “No incentive for nursing grads to stay in N.B.,” Joey Carr, Daily Gleaner (Jun 25/08, B7):

The closest the province of New Brunswick has come to an incentive is offering a diminutive reimbursement of 50 per cent of tuition to a maximum of $2,000 per year. That’s hardly even enough to pay the interest my student loan would accrue in a year.

The government of British Columbia offers loan forgiveness for nurses and other eligible professionals, at 33 per cent of your loan balance for every year worked in the province. Basically, after three years of working, your loans are done. Now that’s what I call an incentive to stay.…

The province states how desperate they are for nurses. For years, we’ve heard about the “critical nursing shortage.”

It’s time the government of New Brunswick stopped wallowing in self-pity and actually started to actively recruit and retain its nurses.

 

Well at least we’re not alone.

A thoughtful blog post by Bert Olivier, professor of philosophy at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, on the roles of universities and professional training institutions. A sample paragraph:

What I am talking about is what seems to me to be the drift towards a narrowing down of the “function” of a university in the traditional, constantly self-renewing sense, towards an institution which merely serves the needs of the community as determined by current economic and social needs, by focusing mainly on the training of “professionals”. The fact that, since the merger of the PE Technikon, Vista PE and the University of Port Elizabeth, the institution (and others like it) has been known as a “comprehensive institution”, instead of a university, plain and simple (despite the fact that it bears the name of a university). The question that this raises is: Does the training of professionals at such a tertiary institution preclude the maintenance of the character of a university as an institution that encourages and cultivates critical thinking, or does it presuppose this character?

 

Will we be next?

As reported in the Times Higher Education Supplement (Jan 24/08), the plans introduced two years ago to offer students in the UK compressed degrees, funded by the private sector, are expanding beyond Derby, Leeds Metropolitan, Staffordshire, Northampton, and Medway Partnership:

In the annual grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, John Denham, the Universities Secretary, set out his “ambitious and groundbreaking” plans for the sector.

The rise of degrees part-funded by employers and tailored to their individual needs; part-time and flexible courses; ‘compressed’ two-year honours degrees; and vocational foundation degrees are the way to meet the agenda, he said.

Mr Denham added that there should be 5,000 degree places partly funded by employers in 2008-09, 10,000 the following year, and 20,000 in three years.

But even if these targets were met, there would still be “a long way to go,” Mr Denham said. “We will look for more substantial growth in this kind of provision from 2011. This in part will mean a new approach to funding … But the need for innovation and cultural change goes well beyond that.”

“Providers will need a growing appreciation of the requirements of employers … to provide and adapt courses swiftly in response to demand (and) to offer provision tailored to individual businesses,” Mr Denham said.

Acknowledging that the next three years would be a period of “controlled experimentation,” he said that there should be 100,000 students on two-year foundation degrees by 2010, and more two-year honours degrees. (Source)

Interestingly, when UK universities first began offering students a compressed option, students were faced with paying double the usual tuition fees for the privilege of taking the “fast track” (see BBC News).

How does this relate to post-secondary education in New Brunswick?

Michael Shattock, one of the UK’s bona fide gurus of post-secondary education, lectured to a crowd at the WU Centre (UNB-F) on 16 April and to another assembly in Saint John two days later on university and community partnerships. He is best known as the former Registrar of Warwick University who headed up the “transformation” of his home institution during the Thatcher cut-and-slash years. He played a big role in transforming a university on the skids into an entrepreneurial powerhouse whose motto is “philosophers interpret the world, the point is to reinvent it” (see Reinventing Education at Warwick). However, as pointed out by Simon Marginson, Warwick’s transformation was made possible by the fact that it had almost four decades of government support before going entrepreneurial and that funding, direction, and institutional stability account for the entrepreneurial success story. As an interesting aside, Marginson also points out that: “A Cambridge approach would not have worked at Warwick; nor can a Warwick or Cambridge strategy create a doctoral university out of a two-year community college in Canada” (Minerva, 44, 2006, 80).

Reviews of Shattock’s work are largely positive, especially his view that academics must be at the core of university governance, but it has been pointed out by someone more knowledgable than I that there is something in his work for everyone — i.e. for those advocating commercialization of the academy and a strong non-academic management team, as well as for those sympathetic to a more traditional view of academic governance. I am, however, a little uneasy with the notion that aspiring university administrators can obtain a master’s degree from the Institute of Education, University of London, due to his initiative, and it gives one pause that his accolades include service in 1987 on a “team established by the University Grants Committee that effectively closed the bankrupt University College Cardiff; [and] in 1994 he chaired a public inquiry into the affairs of Derby College that led to the dismissal of the governing body. He has also been an adviser to the parliamentary select committee on education; see above announcement regarding compressed degrees” (Times Higher Education Supplement, Nov 2/01).

Lastly, (in an already lengthy post) he chaired the OECD panel that produced the “Review of Higher Education in Ireland” (2004) recommending an end to the “Free Fees Policy” for undergraduate education (Recommendation #50). This recommendation reflects his long held view that no government is “able to pay fully for the transition from elite to mass and from mass to near universal education.” (online reprint, THES, 1999).

For those interested in internationalization — and who isn’t in the world of post-secondary education — Shattock has a clear position: “In my opinion setting up overseas campuses is a strategic mistake. They involve a huge commitment of time and resources, and they are a diversion from the core business of running your university.” He and five other academics with experience in China-UK partnerships put together British universities in China: The reality beyond the rhetoric (see AGORA: the Forum for Culture and Education; Anthea Lipsett, “Academics urge caution over Chinese collaboration,” EducationGuardian.co.uk, Dec 6/07). Although they feel an obligation to point out that their arguments do not constitute anti-Chinese sentiment, their disclaimer seems misplaced given that it is crystal clear that their main concern is that the Chinese government is no longer interested in partnerships with second ranked western institutions. The “problem” is that their efforts in China are being rebuffed as top tiered universities cash in on the “customer base” (see “Expert warns ‘naive’ British.” THES, Dec 7/07).

Political issues within Chinese universities are also raised as problematic, but interestingly enough Shattock implies elsewhere that the situation in the UK is not so very different. He warns that whatever happens within academe, we will not return to the 1960s; rather we seem to be moving towards “stronger and more authoritarian internal governance and management structure and greater state control” (J. Ed. Policy 14.3, 1999, 282). He especially dislikes the latter tendency. Who wouldn’t? But as one of the warriors who combatted Thatcherism (successfully) he proposes using incentives to encourage institutional efforts in obtaining external funding, creating a cabinet style governing body, and providing flexibility so as to allow faculty recruitment and remuneration reflective of specific institutional missions (see recommendations 8,9,10,12, 17, 19, “Review of Higher Education in Ireland,” 2004).

Ah… our future unfolds before us. We’re reliving the Thatcher years!