Tag: Canada

Re-capturing the early 80s | HESA

Most of the time when I talk about the history of university financing, I show a chart that looks like this, showing that since 1980 government funding to the sector is up by a factor of about 2.3 after inflation over the last 40-odd years, while total funding is up by a factor of 3.6.

Figure 1: Canadian University Income by source, 1979-80 to 2022-23, in billions of constant $2022

That’s just a straight up expression of how universities get their money. But what it doesn’t take account of are changes in enrolment, which as Figure 2 shows, were a pretty big deal. Universities have admitted a *lot* more students over time. The university system has nearly doubled since the end of the 1990s and nearly tripled since the start of the 1990s.

Figure 2: Full-time Equivalent Enrolment, Canada, Universities, 1978-79 to 2022-23

So, the question is, really, how have funding pattern changes interacted with changes in enrolment? Well, folks, wonder no more, because I have toiled through some unbelievably badly-organized excel data to bring you funding data on this that goes back to the 1980s (I did a version of this back here, but I only captured national-level data—the toil here involved getting data granular enough to look at individual provinces). Buckle up for a better understanding of how we got to our present state!

Figure 3 is what I would call the headline graph: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022. Naturally, it looks a bit like Figure 1, but more muted because it takes enrolment growth into account.

Figure 3: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022

There’s nothing revolutionary here, but it shows a couple of things quite clearly. First, government funding per-student has been falling for most of the past 40 years.; the brief period from about 1999 to 2009 stands out as the exception rather than the norm. Second, despite that, total funding per student is still quite high compared with the 1990s. Institutions have found ways to replace government income with income from other sources. That doesn’t mean the quality of the money is the same. As I have said before, hustling for money incurs costs that don’t occur if governments are just writing cheques.

As usual, though, looking at the national picture often disguises variation at the provincial level. Let’s drill one level down and see what happened to government spending at the sub-national level. A quick note here: “government spending” means *all* government spending, not just provincial government spending. So, Ontario and Quebec probably look better than they otherwise would because they receive an outsized chunk of federal government research spending, while the Atlantic provinces probably look worse. I doubt the numbers are affected much because overall revenues from federal sources are pretty small compared to provincial ones, but it’s worth keeping in mind as you read the following.

Figure 4 looks at government spending per student in the “big three” provinces which make up over 75% of the Canadian post-secondary system. Nationally, per-student spending fell from $22,800 per year to $17,600 per year. But there are differences here: Ontario spent the entire 42-year period below that average, while BC and Quebec spent nearly all that period above it. Quebec has notably seen very little in terms of per-student fluctuations, while BC has been more volatile. Ontario saw a recovery in spending during the McGuinty years, but then has experienced a drop of about 35%. Of note, perhaps is that most of this decline happened before the arrival of the current Ford government.

Figure 4: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Big Three” provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23

Figure 5 shows that spending volatility was much higher in the three oil provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador. All three provinces spent virtually the entirety of our period with above-average spending levels but the gap between these provinces and the national average was quite large both in the early 1980s and from about 2005 onwards: i.e. when oil prices were at their highest. Alberta of course has seen per-student funding drop by about 50% in the last fifteen years, but at the same time, it is close to where it was 25 years ago. So, was it the dramatic fall or the precipitous rise that was the outlier?

Figure 5: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Oil provinces”, 1980-81 to 2022-23

Figure 6 shows the other four provinces for the sake of completeness. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the lowest spenders in the country for most of the period we’re looking at, only catching up to the national average in the mid-aughts. Interestingly, the two provinces took two different paths to raise per-student spending: Nova Scotia did it almost entirely by raising spending, while in New Brunswick this feat was to a considerable extent “achieved” by a significant fall in student numbers (this is a ratio, folks, both the numerator and the denominator matter!).

Figure 6: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and selected provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23

An interesting question, of course, is what it would have cost to have kept public spending at 1980 per-student levels. And it’s an interesting question, because remember, total spending did in fact rise quite substantially (see Figure 1): it just didn’t rise as fast as student numbers. So, in Figure 7, I show what it would have cost to keep per-student expenditures stable at 1980-81 levels both if student numbers had stayed constant, and what it would have meant in practice given actual student numbers.

Figure 7: Funds required to return to 1980-81 levels of per-student government investment in universities, Canada, in millions of constant $2022

Weird-looking graph, right? But here’s how to interpret it. Per-student public funding did fall in the 80s and early 90s. But it rose again in the early aughts, to the point where per-student funding went back to where it was in 1980, even though the number of students in the system had doubled in the meanwhile. From about 2008 onwards, though, public investment started falling off again in per-student terms, going back to mid/late-90s levels even as overall student numbers continued to rise. We are now at the point where getting back to the levels of 1980-81, or even just 2007-08, would require a rise of between $6 and $6.5 billion dollars.

Anyways, that’s enough sunshine for one morning. Have a great day.

Source link

January 15, 2025
Where Canada lies in Global Trends with Alex Usher

Happy New Year and Welcome back to the World of Higher Education Podcast! I’m Tiffany MacLennan, your host for the day which means our guest is the one and only, Alex Usher.

In this episode, we’ll explore key global trends in higher education and then dive into how Canada fits—or doesn’t—within them. From widespread funding challenges to the politicization of universities and the evolving focus on vocational education, we’ll unpack how these issues play out on a global scale and what they mean for Canadian post-secondary sector. Let’s hear from Alex.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.15 | Where Canada lies in Global Trends with Alex UsherKelchen

Transcript

Tiffany MacLennan (TM): Alex, many of our guests this year discussed how their higher education systems are grappling with significant funding challenges. Can you tell me what some of the issues have been globally? Have there been any places that haven’t been struggling financially?

Alex Usher (AU): I think in the developed world, you’ve got very similar issues: slow economic growth, price volatility, an aging demographic, and frankly, increasing skepticism about how higher education translates into economic growth. What you’ve seen everywhere, I think, is a weakening in the desire to invest in higher education—certainly compared to where we were 20 years ago. Back then, when global rankings started, everyone wanted to climb higher in the rankings. That reflected a belief by countries that investments in knowledge paid dividends, that more top universities meant a better economy. I just don’t think people believe that anymore. And until that belief comes back, it’s going to be tough to get public funding. Private funding—through higher tuition fees, for example—is still possible, and it works in some places, like China. But in much of Europe, where taxes are high, people feel like they’ve already paid their dues and don’t want to pay tuition fees. In North America, Australia, and the UK, there’s growing skepticism about whether higher education is delivering value for money. The combination of those two have put higher education in a difficult position.

So, globally, there’s a gap. Universities and academics know what kind of product they’d like to offer the public, but nobody wants to pay for it—either privately or publicly. That gap, I’d say, is about 10-15% in most countries. India and Turkey being exceptions to the rule with recent increases.

TM: That’s interesting. Are these funding challenges playing out in the same way in Canada, or are there unique factors at play here?

AU: When it comes to public funding, I think Canada’s pretty much following the global trend. Maybe we’ve defunded institutions a bit more than some other countries, but that’s because we thought we’d found a workaround: international students. I always say public funding of public education is a public good, but foreign funding of public education? That’s a public great. If you can get another country’s middle class to subsidize your middle class’s education, why wouldn’t you do it?

And that’s what Canada did. We thought that marketization would save us and in marketization, in our case, was largely about internationalization. For a decade, every time governments said, “We’re not investing this year,” institutions said, “That’s fine, we’ll bring in another 10,000 international students.” And it worked—for a while, a decade really. But we weren’t the only ones. The UK, Australia, and the Netherlands became similarly dependent on international students.

And in all those countries, decades of nimbyism and a failure to build housing eventually hit a breaking point. Housing prices soared, and international students—fairly or unfairly—got blamed for it.

In Canada, we’ve seen the federal government move to cut international immigration, including reducing the number of international students coming in. That’s caused rental prices to drop for the first time in years. But it’s also exposed the vulnerability of this funding model. You can’t rely on international students forever if the public doesn’t want to pay for higher education.

TM: One of our past guests, Simon Marginson, has talked extensively about the growing polarization in higher education around the world. We’ve heard about this polarization in the U.S. with the Trump administration, in Russia, and in other places. Can you summarize what this polarization means and how it’s playing out globally?

AU: I’m not convinced that polarization is the right way to frame it. What we’re really seeing is the increased politicization of higher education, a public good.

For a long time, the idea was that publicly funded higher education would be responsive to the public. But if the public goes bananas—if they elect fascists—then higher education reflects that. It’s not polarization per se; it’s increased state control over higher education, regardless of how much governments are actually funding it.

In Canada and the U.S., for instance, governments don’t fund post-secondary education to a huge extent, but they’re exerting more and more influence over it. Meanwhile, in places like China and Russia, we’re seeing autocratic governments tighten their grip on higher education—not because of polarization, but because they see academia as a threat. Putin has been in Russia for 25 years, there’s not a new polarization, he’s now choosing to exert greater state control.

For years, there was this idea that higher education would democratize these countries. “Educate more people, and they’ll demand democracy.” But it didn’t happen. Instead, higher education made autocrats more aware of the potential for political dissent and using higher education to affect political change, and they’ve responded by cracking down on it.

I think this trend is almost universal. Governments are less democratic overall because of short time frames. You see it in Canada, where provincial governments increasingly order universities to do things. And next week, Alma Maldonado is going to talk about how a left-wing populist government in Mexico is doing similar things. It’s not a left-right issue—it’s about state control.

TM: Do you think Canada is more insulated from this politicization, or are we seeing divides within our own higher education system? It’s January 6^th right now, Justin Trudeau stepped down about 4 hours ago and we’re going to go into an election. How does this affect the next handful of years in Canadian higher education?

AU: We’re not insulated from it, but the pressures here are less extreme. For example, the Ontario government made a big deal about free speech on campus six years ago, but all it has amounted to is a two-page report every year from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario and nothing else happened. It’s performative but the conservatives are happy because they showed those liberal jerks where to get off, and that’s fine. The right is satisfied with a certain level of performativity.

You’re seeing it right now in Alberta, there’s been some noise about shutting down equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) programs. Calgary and Alberta have rebranded EDI portfolios as “access, community, and inclusion,” but they’re not doing anything fundamentally different, even though they have different letters of the alphabet. Boards and universities know it’s worth being inclusive, and they’re not going to stop doing that.

So you have to give conservative governments symbolic victories over universities, but they still want their kids to go there. That’s different from the U.S., where we’re seeing a real shift in how Republican families view higher education and how many children, male and female, want to attend university. Here, I think we’ll see culture war issues pop up, but I don’t think they’ll reach U.S. levels.

TM: Another hot topic on the podcast this year has been the vocationalization of higher education—this push for more work-ready graduates. Is this part of a global trend?

AU: I’m not actually sure this is a new trend. Since at least the 1960s, as we’ve moved from elite systems of higher education to mass and then universal systems, vocationalization has been part of that shift. Once higher education is no longer a luxury good, it becomes more about what people can get out of it.

Massification has always been accompanied by vocationalization because most people want to know that what they’re studying will help them get ahead. That’s not new.

You do hear rhetorical volleys about this, like “We need more plumbers and fewer philosophy grads.” I think Rick Scott might’ve been the one to say that. But you don’t actually see governments translating that rhetoric into significant program changes. What really drives programming shifts is student demand—what applicants choose to study. Which is very different from governments coming in and making these changes. For example, are students less interested in the humanities? Sure. But we still have higher humanities enrollments today than for 99% of human history. They’re not as high as they were in the 1980s or 1990s, but they’re still significant.

In countries that are newer to mass or universal higher education—like in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America—you’re seeing more demand for vocational programs. That’s because it’s not just the upper class going to university anymore. Middle-class and lower-middle-class families want to make sure their investment in education leads to tangible returns, they don’t want to do it just because it’s a nice time.

So, is vocationalization a global trend? Yes, but it’s been happening for decades. It’s not a new phenomenon.

TM: In Canada, do you think recent changes to immigration and student work visa policies will shift the balance between vocational and liberal arts education?

AU: Let me start with vocational education in Canada, because I think it’s one of the best things we do. Over the last 60 years, we’ve built a remarkable system—completely unplanned, of course. Canadians don’t really plan higher education; we stumble into things. But we ended up with a system that offers a lot of options for people who don’t want to go to university or pursue more theoretical studies.

We’ve created pathways into the middle class through vocational education, which I think is the secret to Canadian egalitarianism. The community college system—whether it’s polytechnics, local community colleges, or CÉGEPs in Quebec—provides young people with opportunities that don’t exist in many countries. And they’re good options that lead to good jobs.

The problem is, like universities, no one wants to pay for it. Governments don’t seem to understand that not training enough people is part of what’s causing bottlenecks in areas like building things and meeting labour needs. It’s wild—especially in Ontario, where the Ford government has no sense of how this all ties together.

On the international student front, Canada’s college system has been attractive because it offers a pathway to permanent residency. That’s brought in a lot of international students, and some colleges have benefited immensely—especially those that took full advantage of this, and pigged out. They’ve become incredibly rich, and much of that money has gone into building infrastructure. But now, with changes to immigration and postgraduate work visa policies, we’re going to lose a lot of those students. It’s already starting to hurt.

In Ontario, for example, international students were cross-subsidizing some of the most expensive programs, particularly in the trades. Without them, it’s going to be tough to keep some of those programs running. We’re going to see closures and cuts.

Universities, on the other hand, won’t be as affected. Most international students at universities are in business, science, and engineering programs, which are less impacted by the policy changes. But for colleges, especially those that relied heavily on international students, the next few years are going to be very difficult. It’s carnage in the colleges and it’s bad for universities.

TM: Last question. Which of the recent trends do you think will stick, and what do they mean for the future of Canadian higher education?

AU: I think most of the trends we’re seeing now will stick around for a few years. I don’t foresee governments suddenly having a revelation and deciding, “We should fund post-secondary education more.” It just doesn’t seem likely. You might see some marginal changes, but they won’t be transformative.

Take Alberta as an example. Over the next decade, they’re expecting a 30 to 40 percent increase in the youth population. You’d think that would lead to investments in higher education capacity—this is as predictable as it gets with demographics—but it’s not happening. It’s not that they can’t see it; they simply don’t want to spend the money.

One way Canada stands out, though, is how limited our thinking has become when it comes to skills. The PIAAC data came out recently, but it barely made a ripple. Twenty years ago, governments would have looked at that data and asked, “What skills do our young people need to succeed in the world?” Now, when you mention skills, they only think about trades and healthcare. The broader idea of transversal skills—those that matter for the entire economy, not just specific occupations—has disappeared from the conversation.

Our policy community in higher education seems to have been lobotomized over the past couple of decades. We’ve stopped focusing on the big issues. That said, when governments are lazy or inattentive, institutions sometimes have the space to innovate. I think we’ll see some exciting developments around teaching, AI, and microcredentials. Maybe not as much as some expect, but more than I would’ve thought a few years ago.

I also expect shorter university programs to emerge—likely returning to three-year degrees, as we had in the 1980s and 1990s. With labour shortages becoming more acute, institutions won’t be able to keep students for four years anymore. This will take time—probably a decade or so—but I think it’s coming.

In general, universities are going to need to focus more on labour market outcomes, skills, and efficiency. Students will likely appreciate this shift, especially if institutions start respecting their time more. But it’s going to require universities to think differently about money. For decades, the solution has been to find more revenue and throw it at problems. That’s no longer viable. Now, they’ll have to look at the cost side and find smarter, more efficient ways to operate.

It’s going to lead to a very different kind of university system—one that’s more focused on cost-effectiveness, shorter programs, and labour market alignment. These changes could last five, maybe even ten years, but they’re coming, and they’re going to reshape the sector.

TM: Alex, thanks for joining us this week. Join us next week, when Alex is back as host, and Alma Maldonado joins us again to give an update on the Mexican higher education system. See you then!

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

Source link

January 9, 2025
Reflections on Tenure in Canada vs Wisconsin – GlobalHigherEd

This entry is available at Inside Higher Ed as well.

~~~~~~

In the context of some intense debates about tenure in the University of Wisconsin System, and at UW-Madison, I’ve been acquiring some interesting information and views about tenure and related governance matters in Canada vs Wisconsin. Reflections and data have been kindly provided by Canadian leaders representing faculty and university administrative bodies, both nationally and in select universities.

Why focus on this issue in comparative perspective? First, leading Canadian universities (UBC, Toronto, Waterloo, McGill) have been poaching faculty from UW and could increasingly do so if proposed changes to tenure do not match existing standards/AAUP guidelines. Second, looking at different systems in a comparative way helps you realize what is working well here in WI, but also what might need to be changed, especially if higher education governance becomes more politicized in Wisconsin (as it has been in states like North Carolina).

In the end, it is similar and different in Canadian peer universities vs what we experience in WI. I think the biggest difference is it is more unionized in Canada (for ~80% of the faculty base) and the details re. tenure and layoffs are embedded in collective agreements. This said, some faculty associations at peers – the University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, McMaster University, and McGill University – though not officially certified as labour unions, nevertheless have negotiated collective agreements with standard grievance and arbitration procedures. Also, in Canada, the majority of part-time faculty are unionized and staff are unionized. It just goes to show you don’t necessarily need regulations re. tenure embedded in the state statutes (or equivalent) to guarantee strong tenure and shared governance, but, this said, there are other key differences (see below) so how it is all configured matters, a lot…

In the end, no tenured faculty in Canadian universities (including 100% of our peers, the ones poaching our faculty) lose tenure except for engaging in serious forms of unethical behavior (i.e. ‘due cause’). Exigency-related rules do apply but it has not happened, to date, for all sorts of reasons. And if exigency-related layoffs of tenured faculty were to be proposed, it happens at a broader university-scale and the guidelines typically state that a task-force is to be appointed with diverse membership and/or it can only happen in specified ways.

The other big (and important) difference is program-related changes are run through Canadian university senates and the senate is typically made up of senior administrators and elected faculty (the majority), staff, students, etc. See these senate membership lineups, for example:

The UW Board of Regents equivalent in Canadian universities does not need to sign off on program-related changes like the Board of Regents does here. So decisions on closure or redundancy are senate decisions (i.e. the locus of engagement and control is intra-institutional in nature). And in unionized environments, redundancy procedure, after senate has declared program closure, etc., are governed by collective agreement processes. In general the UW Board of Regents here in WI has not been too involved in the fine-grained details of program-related decisions or the funding of centers – they approve what has come up via shared governance pathways. But they could, in the future, become far more active and micro-management in orientation.

On a related note, boards of trustees or equivalent in Canada are university-specific and are more diverse and relatively autonomous from government involvement. You basically have government funded but privately (not-for-profit) autonomous universities. This keeps things less capital P political. The proposed New Badger Partnership (2011) Board of Trustees:

UW-Madison governed by 21-member Board of Trustees, including 11 members appointed by the Governor, with no Senate confirmation. Remaining 10 members represent UW-Madison constituencies (faculty, staff, classified staff, alumni, WARF). All remaining UW campuses governed by the current Board of Regents.

would have brought us half way to to this level of board autonomy vs the current system, though this proposed approach to governance should have also been applied to the UW System more generally and not just UW-Madison.

Thus, what you see is a relatively more autonomous/less politicized university and higher ed governance system in Canada; one where the norms of tenure and academic freedom are sometimes constructed via agreements but often are just part of institutional-organizational culture. The faculty trust the system more, I would say, than they do here now in what could become, if we don’t watch out, a hyper-politicized context. And they do so partly because of the unionized context, the codified agreements, and the fact the premier (governor equivalent) and the ruling party (or parties) tend to be much more hands-off. Increasingly, in Canada, governments through sector-wide bargaining or recalibrating funding formula, or setting tuition fee parameters, are exercising more hands on approaches. Budgets are, of course, political, but they’re just budgets for the most part and they don’t embed policy matters re tenure into budgetary processes in Canada like it has been happening here. It’s a more deliberative context: not perfect, this said, just more deliberative in structure.

The short-term take-away: don’t have unclear terms and procedures in a context where the potential exists for an increasingly more politicized and micro-management-oriented Board of Regents. Maintain tenure standards at UW-Madison and other universities in the UW System that match, in spirit and meaning, what they were before policy changes were injected into the Spring 2015 Wisconsin state budget. Faculty should not lose tenure except for ‘due cause’, as per AAUP guidelines. If program closure occurs after careful consideration by university-specific governance bodies, tenured faculty should have the right to shift to the unit of their choice, or become a professor of the school or college they are affiliated with. It is a clear and straightforward definition of tenure, and academic freedom, that helped make the US university system so well known, globally, for the production of innovative forms of knowledge. Unclear terms and procedures re. tenure has serious potential to destabilize the foundation of the entire system. And Canadian universities, not to mention hundreds of other US universities, will be salivating if this occurs.

The medium-term take-away: think about the potential role of faculty senates in future debates/steps. And think about tenure and shared governance in the context of the overall governance of the UW System (incl. what has been happening, and what should be happening). In my mind we have a legacy-based governance system that does not reflect the new realities of fiscal (tuition as a majority funding stream), economic (a globalizing knowledge economy), academic, and societal contexts. An unraveling of tenure in the next year will be a proxy indicator the entire UW System governance structure needs to be rethought.

We are, arguably, at risk of seeing the convergence of a legacy-based governance system with a more forceful and explicit political agenda – and this is not beneficial for a world-class university, and a world-class multi-campus state university system, in the 21st century. Anchor tenure, tightly.

Kris Olds

Source link

October 22, 2015