Tag: Part

  • How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages. 

    In Part 1, I looked at how the low grades given at GCSE languages – up to a grade lower than in pupils’ other subjects – is a manufactured situation, easily solved at the stroke of a pen. The narrative around languages being harder is nothing to do with the content of the course or the difficulty of the exam. It is simply a historical anomaly of how the grades are allocated. There is also a false narrative that this unfair grading is due to pupils’ individual ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. And I made a subtle plea for commentators to avoid reinforcing this narrative to push their own diagnosis or solutions. 

    In Part 2, I will consider what happens in post-16 language learning. This has also been the subject of reporting in the wake of A-Level results and the recent HEPI report. I am not going to deny that A-Level languages are in crisis. But the crisis in A-Level and the crisis of language learning post-16 are not one and the same. 

    There are specific problems with the current A-Level specification for languages. The amount of content to be studied, comprising recondite details of every aspect of the Spanish / French / German speaking world, is unmanageable. Worse, as this post explains, the content is out of kilter with the exam. All the encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, history, popular culture and high culture which takes up the bulk of the course, is ultimately only required for one question in just one part of the Speaking Exam. The difficulty of the course is compounded by the extremely high standards required, especially for students who have learned their language in the school context. I personally know of language teachers and college leaders who have discouraged their own children from taking A-Level languages in order not to jeopardise their grades for university application. It is getting to the point where I can no longer, in good conscience, let ambitious students embark on the course without warning them of the overwhelming workload and doubtful outcomes. 

    So A-Level could be improved. But as an academic course, it will always remain the domain of a tiny few. Similarly, specialist Philology degrees at university – the academic study of the language through the intersection of literary and textual criticism, linguistics and the history of the language – only attract a very small minority. Neither university language degrees, nor A-Level, are a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    It is a particularly British mentality to only value language learning if its intellectual heft is boosted by the inclusion of essays, abstruse grammar, linguistics, literature, politics, history, and a study of culture. In other words, philology. Philology is not the same as language learning.  

    Universities do offer language learning opportunities for students of other disciplines. However, in sixth form, because of the funding requirement to offer Level 3 courses, there are no mainstream language learning options available to the vast majority of students who do not study A-Level languages. We have a gap in 16-19 provision where colleges do not offer a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    This gap is fatal to language study. It means GCSE is seen as a dead-end. It means that universities have a tiny pool of students ready and able to take up language degrees or degrees with languages as a component. 

    The crisis is not one of how to channel more people into studying A-Level languages. It is a question of finding radical new ways of offering mainstream language learning post-16, and how to make this the norm. We know from the HEPI report that young people in the UK are among the most avid users of the online language learning app Duolingo. Young people are choosing to engage with language learning, but in terms of formal education, we are leaving a two-year gap between GCSE and the opportunities offered by universities. 

    If this hiatus in language learning is the problem, is there a solution? I have two suggestions. One of which is relatively easy, if we agree that action is needed. If universities genuinely believe that a language is an asset, then they could send a powerful message to potential applicants. 

    Going to university means joining an international organisation, including the possibility of studying abroad, using languages for research, engaging with other students from across the globe, and quite possibly taking a language course while at university. The British Academy reports that universities are calling for language skills across research disciplines, so I hope that they would be able to send a strong message to students in schools and colleges. 

    The message around applications and admissions could be that evidence of studying a language or languages post-16 is something that universities look for. At the very least, they could signal that an interest in self-directed language learning is something they would value. 

    I understand that most universities would stop short of making a qualification in a language a formal entry requirement, because they fear it could exclude many applicants, especially those from disadvantaged groups. But a strong message could help reverse the situation where language learning opportunities are currently denied to many under-privileged school pupils, who aren’t getting the message around the value of pursuing a language. 

    And my second, more difficult suggestion? Would it be possible to plug the two-year gap with a provision at sixth form or college? An app such as Duolingo has attractions. There is the flexibility and independence of study, as well as the focus on motivation by level of learning, hours of study or points scored. It is very difficult to imagine how a sixth form or college could provide language classes for their varied intake from schools, with different language learning experiences in different languages. 

    Is there scope here for a new Oak Academy to step in and create resources? Or for the government to commission resources from an educational technology provider? Is there a role for universities here? The inspiring Languages for All project shows what can happen when a university engages with local schools to identify and tackle obstacles to language learning. The pilot saw Royal Holloway University working with schools across Hounslow, to increase participation at A-Level in a mutually beneficial partnership. Many of the strategies could equally apply to more mainstream (non A-Level) language learning partnerships. These included strong messaging, co-ordinated collaboration between colleges, face-to-face sessions and events at the university, and deployment of university students as mentors. 

    The aim would be to transform the landscape. Currently we have a dead-end GCSE where unfair grading serves as a deterrent, and where there is no mainstream option to make continuing with language learning the norm. A strong message from universities, along with an end to unfair grading, could make a big difference to uptake at GCSE. A realisation that A-Level and specialist philology degrees are not sufficient for the language learning needs of the country could lead to alternative, imaginative and joined-up options post-16. It could also boost the provision or recognition of self-study of a language and may even lead to the reinvigoration of adult education or university outreach language classes. And it could even see a larger pool of candidates for philology degrees at university. 

    Source link

  • Education at a Glance 2025, Part 2

    Education at a Glance 2025, Part 2

    Three weeks ago, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its annual stat fest, Education at a Glance (see last week’s blog for more on this year’s higher education and financing data). The most interesting thing about this edition is that the OECD chose to release some new data from the recent Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) relating to literacy and numeracy levels that were included in the PIAAC 2013 release (see also here), but not in the December 2024 release.   

    (If you need a refresher: PIAAC is kind of like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) but for adults and is carried out once a decade so countries can see for themselves how skilled their workforces are in terms of literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving).

    The specific details of interest that were missing in the earlier data release were on skill level by level of education (or more specifically, highest level of education achieved). OECD for some reason cuts the data into three – below upper secondary, upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary, and tertiary. Canada has a lot of post-secondary non-tertiary programming (a good chunk of community colleges are described this way) but for a variety of reasons lumps all college diplomas in with university degrees in with university degrees as “tertiary”, which makes analysis and comparison a bit difficult. But we can only work with the data the OECD gives us, so…

    Figures 1, 2 and 3 show PIAAC results for a number of OECD countries, comparing averages for just the Upper Secondary/Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary (which I am inelegantly going to label “US/PSNT”) and Tertiary educational attainment. They largely tell similar stories. Japan and Finland tend to be ranked towards the top of the table on all measures, while Korea, Poland and Chile tend to be ranked towards the bottom. Canada tends to be ahead of the OECD average at both levels of education, but not by much. The gap between US/PSNT and Tertiary results are significantly smaller on the “problem-solving” measure than on the others (which is interesting and arguably does not say very nice things about the state of tertiary education, but that’s maybe for another day). Maybe the most spectacular single result is that Finns with only US/PSNT education have literacy scores higher than university graduates in all but four other countries, including Canada.

    Figure 1: PIAAC Average Literacy Scores by Highest Level of Education Attained, Population Aged 25-64, Selected OECD Countries

    Figure 2: PIAAC Average Numeracy Scores by Highest Level of Education Attained, Population Aged 25-64, Selected OECD Countries

    Figure 3: PIAAC Average Problem Scores by Highest Level of Education Attained, Population Aged 25-64, Selected OECD Countries

    Another thing that is consistent across all of these graphs is that the gap between US/PSNT and tertiary graduates is not at all the same. In some countries the gap is quite low (e.g. Sweden) and in other countries the gap is quite high (e.g. Chile, France, Germany). What’s going on here, and does it suggest something about the effectiveness of tertiary education systems in different countries (i.e. most effective where the gaps are high, least effective where they are low)?

    Well, not necessarily. First, remember that the sample population is aged 25-64, and education systems undergo a lot of change in 40 years (for one thing, Poland, Chile and Korea were all dictatorships 40 years ago). Also, since we know scoring on these kinds of tests decline with age, demographic patterns matter too. Second, the relative size of systems matters. Imagine two secondary and tertiary systems had the same “quality”, but one tertiary system took in half of all high school graduates and the other only took in 10%. Chances are the latter would have better “results” at the tertiary level, but it would be entirely due to selection effects rather than to treatment effects.

    Can we control for these things? A bit. We can certainly control for the wide age-range because OECD breaks down the data by age. Re-doing Figures 1-3, but restricting the age range to 25-34, would at least get rid of the “legacy” part of the problem. This I do below in Figures 4-6. Surprisingly little changes as a result. The absolute scores are all higher, but you’d expect that given what we know about skill loss over time.  Across the board, Canada remains just slightly ahead of the OECD average. Korea does a bit better in general and Italy does a little bit worse, but other than the rank-order of results is pretty similar to what we saw for the general population (which I think is a pretty interesting finding when you think of how much effort countries put in to messing around with their education systems…does any of it matter?)

    Figure 4: PIAAC Average Literacy Scores by Highest Level of Education Attained, Population Aged 25-34, Selected OECD Countries

    Figure 5: PIAAC Average Numeracy Scores by Highest Level of Education Attained, Population Aged 25-34, Selected OECD Countries

    Figure 6: PIAAC Average Problem Scores by Highest Level of Education Attained, Population Aged 25-34, Selected OECD Countries

    Now, let’s turn to the question of whether or not we can control for selectivity. Back in 2013, I tried doing something like that, but it was only possible because OECD released PIAAC scores not just as averages but also in terms of quartile thresholds, and that isn’t the case this time. But what we can do is look a bit at the relationship between i) the size of the tertiary system relative to the size of the US/PSNT system (a measure of selectivity, basically) and ii) the degree to which results for tertiary students are higher than those for US/PSNT. 

    Which is what I do in Figure 7. The X-axis here is selectivity [tertiary attainment rate ÷ US/PSNT attainment rate rate] for 25-34 year olds on (the further right on the graph, the more open-access the system), and the Y-axis is PIAAC gaps Σ [tertiary score – US/PSNT score] across the literacy, numeracy and problem-solving measures (the higher the score, the bigger the gap between tertiary and US/PSNT scores). It shows that countries like Germany, Chile and Italy are both more highly selective and have greater score gaps than countries like Canada and Korea, which are the reverse. It therefore provides what I would call light support for the theory that the less open/more selective a system of tertiary education is, the bigger the gap tertiary between Tertiary and US/PSNT scores on literacy, numeracy and problem-solving scores.  Meaning, basically, beware of interpreting these gaps as evidence of relative system quality: they may well be effects of selection rather than treatment.

    Figure 7: Tertiary Attainment vs. PIAAC Score Gap, 25-34 year-olds

    That’s enough PIAAC fun for one Monday.  See you tomorrow.

    Source link

  • Education at a Glance 2025, Part 1

    Education at a Glance 2025, Part 1

    The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its annual stat fest, Education at a Glance (EAG), two weeks ago and I completely forgot about it. But since not a single Canadian news outlet wrote anything about it (neither it nor the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada saw fit to put together a “Canada” briefing, apparently), this blog – two weeks later than usual – is still technically a scoop.

    Next week, I will review some new data from the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) that was released in EAG and perhaps – if I have time – some data from EAG’s newly re-designed section on tertiary-secondary. Today, I am going to talk a bit about some of the data on higher education and financing, and specifically, how Canada has underperformed the rest of the developed world – by a lot – over the past few years.

    Now, before I get too deep into the data, a caveat. I am going to be providing you with data on higher education financing as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. And this is one of those places where OECD really doesn’t like it when people compare data across various issues of EAG. The reason, basically, is that OECD is reliant on member governments to provide data, and what they give is not consistent. On this specific indicator, for instance, the UK data on public financing of higher education are total gibberish, because the government keeps changing its mind on what constitutes “public funding” (this is what happens when you run all your funding through tuition fees and student loans and then can’t decide how to describe loan forgiveness in public statistics). South Korea also seems to have had a re-think about a decade ago with respect to how to count private higher education expenditure as I recounted back here. 

    There’s another reason to be at least a little bit skeptical about the OECD’s numbers, too: it’s not always clear what is and is not included in the numbers. For instance, if I compare what Statistics Canada sends to OECD every year with the data it publishes domestically based on university and college income and on its own GDP figures, I never come up with exactly the same number (specifically, the public spending numbers it provides to OECD are usually higher than what I can derive from what is presumably the same data). I suspect other countries may have some similar issues. So, what I would remind everyone is simply: take these numbers as being broadly indicative of the truth, but don’t take any single number as gospel.

    Got that? OK, let’s look at the numbers. 

    Figure 1: Public and Private Expenditure on Tertiary Institutions as a Percentage of GDP, Select OECD Countries, 2022

    Canada on this measure looks…OK. Public expenditure is a little bit below the OECD average, but thanks to high private expenditure, it’s still significantly above the average. (Note, this data is from before we lost billions of dollars to a loss of international student fees, so presumably the private number is down somewhat since then). We’re not Chile, we’re not the US or the UK, but we’re still better than the median.

    Which is true, if all you’re looking at is the present. Let’s go look at the past. Figure 2, below, shows you two things. First, the amount of money a country spends on its post-secondary education system usually doesn’t change that much. In most countries, in most years, moving up or down one-tenth of a percentage point is a big deal, and odds are even over the course of a decade or so, your spending levels just don’t change that much.

    Figure 2: Total Expenditure on Tertiary Institutions as a Percentage of GDP, Select OECD Countries, 2005-2022

    Second, it shows you that in both Canada and the United States, spending on higher education, as a percentage of the economy, is plummeting. Now, to be fair, this seems like more of a denominator issue than a numerator issue. Actual expenditures aren’t decreasing (much) but the economy is growing, in part due to population growth, which isn’t really happening in the same way in Europe.

    There is a difference between the US and Canada, though. And that is where the decline is coming from. In the US, it is coming (mostly) from lower private-sector contributions, the result of a decade or more of tuition restraint. In Canada, it is coming from much lower public spending. Figure 3 shows change in public spending as a percentage of GDP since 2005.

    Figure 3: Change in Public Expenditure on Tertiary Institutions as a Percentage of GDP since 2005, Select OECD Countries, 2006-2022

    As you can see here, few countries are very far from where they started in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP per capita. Australia and Sweden are both down a couple of tenths of a percentage point. Lucky Netherlands is up a couple of tenths of a percentage point (although note this is before the very large cutbacks imposed by the coalition government last year). But Canada?  Canada is in a class all of its own, down 0.6% of GDP since just 2011. (Again, don’t take these numbers as gospel: on my own calculations I make the cut in public funding a little bit less than that – but still at least twice as big a fall as the next-worst country).

    In sum: Canada’s levels of investment in higher education are going the wrong way, because governments of all stripes at both the federal and provincial level have thought that higher education is easily ignorable or not worth investing in. As a result, even though our population and economy are growing, universities and colleges are being told to keep operating like it’s 2011. The good news is that we have a cushion: we were starting from a pretty high base, and for many years we had international student dollars to keep us afloat. As a result, even after fifteen years of this nonsense, Canada’s levels of higher education investment still look pretty good in comparison to most countries. The bad news: now that the flow of international student dollars has been reduced, the ground is rising up awfully fast.

    Source link

  • Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 2 

    Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 2 

    Author:
    Dr Tom Kennie

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Tom Kennie, Director of Ranmore 

    Introduction 

    In the first blog post, I focused on the process of appointing new Vice Chancellors. with some thoughts and challenges to current practice. In this second contribution, I focus more on support and how to ensure that the leadership transition receives as much attention as candidate selection.  

    Increasingly, the process of leadership transitions often starts way before the incoming successful candidate has been appointed. Depending on the circumstances which led to the need for a new leader, the process may involve a short or extended period with an Interim Leader. This can be an internal senior leader or someone externally who is appointed for a short, fixed-term period. This in itself is a topic for another day. It does, however, require careful consideration as part of the successful transition of a new leader (assuming the interim is not appointed to the permanent role). 

    Reflections to consider when on-boarding Vice Chancellors 

    Rules of engagement with the Interim or Existing post-holder  

    Clear rules of engagement must be agreed with the appointed Interim. Among those rules are those relating to the engagement with the Board. Often these can feel quite implicit and unspoken. I’d encourage both parties to be much more explicit and document their mutual expectations to share with each other.     

    Incoming Vice Chancellor transition plan (individual and team-based) 

    Moving onto the post-appointment, pre-arrival period is an important phase in the process of ensuring a successful outcome. How can the incoming leader prepare (whilst often doing another big job)? How might the team prepare the way for the incoming leader? And, how might the existing or interim leader hold things together during this period? This is often a period of heightened anxiety within the senior leadership team (although rarely surfaced and discussed). Working with the team during this phase can help to reduce the danger of siloed working and help prepare the team for the arrival of the new leader.  

    Outgoing Vice Chancellor transition plan  

    Frequently overlooked is the importance of ensuring a successful transition for the current post-holder (assuming it has not been a forced exit). Beware of placing too much focus on the new person. Often, as indicated earlier, the current post holder may have many months to go before the new person can start. They also require support and encouragement. And, of course, recognition for their period in office.  

    Day 1 and week 1 

    The lead-up to day 1 requires significant consideration by the new Vice Chancellor. Meeting the new ‘inner office’ and considering how and in what ways the new Vice Chancellor is different in style and expectations compared to the outgoing leader is an important factor. Induction processes will, no doubt, feature heavily in the first few weeks, but a new Vice Chancellor should ensure that they control the transition process. This requires careful coordinated communication and choreography.   

    First x days (what’s the right number?) 

    Every new Vice Chancellor should be wary of being persuaded to work towards delivering a plan by some (often arbitrary) date, typically 90-100 days after their arrival. Understanding the context of the institution, and working with this, is more important. 

    Potential surprises & dilemmas  

    A new Vice Chancellor should expect a few surprises when they start. Context and culture are different and these will have an impact on the interpretation of events. To ensure success, these should be soaked up and immediate responses should be avoided. In time, it will be much easier to work out how to respond and what needs to change. 

    Match and ideally exceed expectations  

    Whilst clearly important and easy to say, it is vital to ensure the Vice Chancellor priorities are clarified with the Chair. Having done this, the senior team should be invited to similarly clarify their priorities. Lastly, these should be shared across the team. This, by itself, is likely to signal a new way of working. 

    A final proposal  

    The process of appointing Vice Chancellors is clearly an important matter for Chairs of Governing Boards. Whilst guidance is provided by the Committee of University Chairs (CUC), the latest edition of the document Recruiting a Vice Chancellor was published in 2017. Much has changed in the past eight years and it feels timely for a fresh look given the very different context and shifts in practice. 

    To close, it is worth remembering that nobody comes fully ready for any senior leadership role. Gaps exist and context and culture are different from the new perspective even if the candidate has had a prior role in a different place. You might wish to consider offering some independent support for your new Vice Chancellor. This could be through being a member of a peer-group and/or individual transition coaching. Being in charge is a lonely place and it can be constructive to be able to talk through dilemmas, issues and opportunities in a safe space. Sometimes this can’t be with one’s Chair or Senior Team.  

    Lastly, don’t be too judgemental and try and give any new Vice Chancellor the benefit of the doubt – well at least for a short while! 

    Source link

  • Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 1 

    Selecting and Supporting New Vice Chancellors: Reflections on Process & Practice – PART 1 

    • This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Tom Kennie, Director of Ranmore.
    • Over the weekend, HEPI director Nick Hillman blogged about the forthcoming party conferences and the start of the new academic year. Read more here.

    Introduction 

    Over the last few months, a number of well-informed commentators have focused on understanding the past, present and to some extent, future context associated with the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the UK. See Tessa Harrison and Josh Freeman of Gatensby Sanderson Jamie Cumming-Wesley of WittKieffer and Paul Greatrix. 

    In this and a subsequent blog post, I want to complement these works with some practice-informed reflections from my work with many senior higher education leaders. I also aim to open a debate about optimising the selection and support for new Vice Chancellors by challenging some current practices. 

    Reflections to consider when recruiting Vice Chancellors 

    Adopt a different team-based approach 

    Clearly, all appointment processes are team-based – undertaken by a selection committee. For this type of appointment, however, we need a different approach which takes collective responsibility as a ‘Selection and Transition Team’. What’s the difference? In this second approach, the team take a wider remit with responsibility for the full life cycle of the process from search to selection to handover and transition into role. The team also oversee any interim arrangements if a gap in time exists between the existing leader leaving and the successor arriving. This is often overlooked.  

    The Six Keys to a Successful Presidential Transition is an interesting overview of this approach in Canada. 

    Pre-search diagnosis  

    Pre-search diagnosis (whether involving a search and selection firm or not) is often underestimated in its importance or is under-resourced. Before you start to search for a candidate to lead a university, you need to ensure those involved are all ‘on the same page’. Sometimes they are, but in other cases they fail to recognise that they are on the same, but wrong, page. Classically, this may be to find someone to lead the organisation of today, and a failure to consider the place they seek to be in 10 years. Before appointing a search firm, part of the solution is to ensure you have a shared understanding of the type of university you are seeking someone to lead.   

    • Role balance and capabilities 

    A further diagnostic issue, linked to the former point, is to be very clear about the balance of capabilities required in your selected candidate. One way of framing this is to assess the candidate balance across a number of dimensions, including:  

    • The Chief Academic Officer (CAO) capabilities; more operational and internally focussed. 
    • The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) capabilities; more strategic and initially internally focussed. 
    • The Chief Civic Officer (CCO) capabilities: more strategic and externally focussed; and 
    • The Chief Stakeholder Relationship Officer (CSRO): more operational and externally focussed. 

    All four matter. One astute Vice Chancellor suggested to me a fifth; Chief Storytelling Officer (CSO). 

    Search firm or not?   

    The decision as to whether to use a search firm is rarely considered today – it is assumed you will use one. It is, however, worth pausing to reflect on this issue, if only to be very clear about what you are seeking from a search firm. What criteria should you use to select one? Are you going with one who you already use, or have used, or are you open to new players (both to you and to the higher education market)? The latter might be relevant if you are seeking to extend your search to candidates who have a career trajectory beyond higher education.  

    ‘Listing’ – how and by whom?   

    Searching should lead to many potential candidates Selecting who to consider is typically undertaken through a long-listing process and from this a short-list is created. Make sure you understand how this will be undertaken and who will be doing it. When was the last time you asked to review the larger list from which the long list was taken?  

    Psychometrics – why, which and how? 

    A related matter involves the use of any psychometric instruments proposed to form part of the selection process. They are often included –yet the rationale for this is often unclear. As is the question of how the data will be used. Equally importantly, if the judgment is that it should be included, who should undertake the process? Whichever route you take, you would be wise to read Andrew Munro’s recent book on the topic, Personality Testing In Employee Selection: Challenges, Controversies and Future Directions 

    Balance questions with scenarios and dilemmas 

    Given the complexity of the role of the Vice Chancellor, it is clearly important to assess candidates across a wide range of criteria. Whilst a question-and-answer process can elicit some evidence, we should all be aware of the limitations of such a process. Complementing the former with a well-considered scenario-based processes involving a series of dilemmas, which candidates are invited to consider, is less common than it should be. 

    Rehearse final decision scenarios  

    If you are fortunate as a selection panel, after having considered many different sources of evidence, you will reach a collective, unanimous decision about the candidate you wish to offer the position. Job almost done. More likely, however, you will have more than one preferred candidate – each providing evidence to be appointable albeit with evidence of gaps in some areas. Occasionally, you may also have reached an impasse where strong cases are made to appoint two equally appointable candidates. Preparing for these situations by considering them in advance. In some cases, the first time such situations are considered are during the final stage of the selection exercise. 

    In part 2 I’ll focus more on support and how to ensure the leadership transition is given as much attention as candidate selection. 

    Source link

  • Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis Part II – Edu Alliance Journal

    Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis Part II – Edu Alliance Journal

    By Dr. Barry Ryan, September 15, 2025 – In my August 11th article titled ‘Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis,” we established that higher education leadership today cannot be solitary work and that effective crisis response requires both internal and external counsel. Now that you’ve assembled (at least thought through) your cast of trusted advisors and recognized the unique leadership demands of your situation, the next critical step is understanding what you’re actually facing—and how to navigate it successfully. Once you recognize that your organization may be entering such a time, there are three key initial questions to ask:

    1. How long can a crisis be expected to last?
    2. What are the effects of crisis on my institution, on my team, on my loved ones, and on me?
    3. What are some healthy and effective ways I can lead during crisis?

    First, how long should I expect a “typical” crisis to last?

    At first blush, it might seem a little silly to ask how long a crisis lasts. After all, isn’t that inherently unpredictable?

    The answer is “yes” and “no.” It may seem a little flippant to say, but the reality is that the length of a crisis depends to a certain degree on how you and those in leadership alongside you respond to it. Your approach and actions may make it longer or shorter than it would have been. Here’s what I mean.

    Ignoring a crisis and hoping that it blows over is actually a potential strategy—although not one that I would recommend in most circumstances. But there are some built-in roadblocks in a university’s life cycle, which is divided largely into annual, semester, or quarter segments. These can act, on their own, as speed bumps or detours that might diminish or change the course of a crisis.  

    For example, a crisis that is being instigated or aggravated by certain individuals might be relieved to some degree on its own by their departure through retirement, transfer, and so on.  Or a financial crisis might be alleviated by the structural limits on certain types of debt that will be paid off, or the inception of certain grants or gifts that are within sight. But these are, unfortunately, uncommon scenarios, and the timing may be unpredictable.

    On a global scale, one might think of Winston Churchill trying to imagine how long World War II might last. As futile as such a task might have been, he did, indeed, play out various scenarios and their likely duration. Although it makes for a great quote and probably captures an important aspect of Churchill’s thinking, he likely did not say, “When you’re going through hell, keep going.” But that’s a good reminder for anyone in crisis.

    To grossly generalize, I have found that most institutional crises last between six months and two years. Why is that? The more acute ones require quicker action, and the result is either a solution that addresses the issues promptly and efficiently, in, say, six months, and you can move on to other things. Or, failing to find a speedy solution may end with you moving on. (And I don’t mean this lightly, but the reality is that moving on is not the end of the world.)

    Why the two-year time frame, on the other end? Because I’ve found that to be about the maximum time frame that a board, or an accreditor, or a creditor, or even a faculty can endure before a solution is reached. Again, the conclusion of the crisis will either leave you in a happier and stronger position in your institution or leave you seeking happiness and a better position somewhere else. But somewhere between six months and two years is what I have found to be the rough lifespan of an intense crisis. (This is barring, of course, a truly existential crisis as a result of which the institution ceases to exist in its current form. But even that drastic of an outcome can easily take two years or more to unfold.)

    Second, what are some of the common effects, and how do you survive them?

    For the sake of argument, let’s say you become aware that you are entering a crisis period, whether or not it eventually proves to be an existential one. How do you survive in the intervening six months to two years?

    Let’s begin with the effects of a continuing crisis on a leader. The crisis can easily become an enormous distraction for someone who already has too much on their plate. The stress that comes with leadership increases in crisis times, with mental, emotional, and even physical effects. Exhaustion can become a daily (and nightly) companion.  Self-doubt creeps in and steals even more of the leader’s resources.

    It sounds trite, but when this happens, don’t forget to take a few deep breaths – physically and metaphorically. 

    Draw up a “non-crisis” item list, i.e., things that still need to be done, but aren’t necessarily at the crisis point. Now start divvying them up between and among your fellow leaders, and to their direct reports when possible. This could be an opportune time to help them grow and develop, as well as ease your load.

    Along with that, begin to excuse yourself from meetings at which your presence is not absolutely necessary. Only you really know which are and which aren’t. You may still need to attend to some that aren’t technically necessary, but that may prove helpful in crisis-related activities. Again, having trusted substitutes sit in for you for a while can be a growth opportunity for them, and also demonstrate that you trust and empower those with whom you work. When it comes to meetings, which can serve to drain you even more, perhaps adopt a practice of only making limited strategic appearances. Make your participation relevant enough and just long enough to establish your presence and help you – and your colleagues – feel like you’re staying in touch.

    Don’t forget to take some days off, or even vacations. Sad but true, don’t make them too long or too far away or somewhere too difficult for you to be reached. You’re probably not really going to relax completely anyway, but you should at least experience some benefit from a change in perspective and place. Frankly, you would do well to consider the health and happiness of your loved ones who’ve been going through this with you, and that they need a break, perhaps even more than you do. After all, you are able to face the crisis more directly, as well as possible enemies, while your loved ones have to suffer vicariously and without the same ability to engage.

    Third, how to lead during a crisis?

    There is no question that crises have deleterious effects on you, your friends and family, but also your colleagues. You undoubtedly have support and supporters (even though they may seem distant), so don’t neglect them. Their fidelity to the institution and its mission – and you – deserves appreciation and acknowledgement, even if only expressed privately. They’re worried about the institution, but also their livelihood and their colleagues as well. 

    When they see you, try not to be the deer in the headlights (a situation that doesn’t usually end well in the wild). Appearing indecisive is uninspiring. But so is being overbearing or angry.

    Try to be yourself as you were before the crisis. Remember to smile, relax the muscles of your face and neck, and ask them about their loved ones, their teaching, or their research. Be human. The thoughtful ones have an idea about what you’re feeling and going through, so it’s okay for them to see you as a human. You don’t have to adopt a fake effervescence, but you should avoid moping.

    Seek impartial counsel. That may, or may not, include colleagues. A small group of confidants is necessary. External friends who have the courage to be honest with you, and also keep complete confidence, can be your best resource to help you gain and keep perspective. They may have higher ed experience, but not necessarily. I have always found that the best counsel comes from folks who have had real challenges, real losses, survived real attacks, and still kept their heads about them. Ones that are “too perfect” are probably not what you need at this point.

    While there is a need for you to seek and obtain trustworthy counsel, you should at the same time try to avoid seeking too much counsel. Bottom line is that you’re a leader and you’re going to have to make difficult decisions. So you should accept counsel, but too much can be confusing and even overwhelming. 

    Look, you’re in a tough position and no matter what you do, some people (possibly including some people you respect and care about) are not going to be thrilled. Sad but true. And some of those feelings may change over time, as they come to a fuller perspective as well.

    My advice to leaders in crisis situations always includes two elements:

    Can you make a decision that allows you to look at yourself in the mirror? 

    Then do what you believe is right and let the chips fall where they may. Period.

    While you are a leader in a profession you may (or may not any longer) dearly love, there IS an “after.”  That may mean continuing in your post-crisis position in the same post-crisis institution, or it may mean more significant changes for you.  If so, take what you’ve learned along to whatever comes next.  Partings are rarely enjoyable, but I recall a very thoughtful young person we had to let go.  His response was remarkable.  “I want to learn from this experience and become better as a result.” When I saw him at another institution a year later, he came up to me and said that’s exactly what had transpired and that he was grateful.

    Your life, and your legacy, are much more than just this current time of crisis within this current institution. Be grateful to those who have earned that gratitude, and remember who you are.

    Dr. Barry Ryan is a seasoned higher education executive, legal scholar, and former president of five universities. He is a senior consultant for the Edu Alliance Group and a legal scholar. With more than 25 years of leadership experience, Dr. Ryan has served in numerous roles, including faculty member, department chair, dean, vice president, provost, and chief of staff at state, non-profit, and for-profit universities and law schools. His extensive accreditation experience includes two terms on the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), serving a maximum of six years. He is widely recognized for his expertise in governance, accreditation, crisis management, and institutional renewal.

    In addition to his academic career, Dr. Ryan ​ served as the Supreme Court Fellow in the chambers of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and is a​ member of numerous federal and state bars. He has contributed extensively to charitable organizations and is experienced in board leadership and large-scale fundraising. He remains a trusted advisor to universities and boards seeking strategic alignment and transformation.

    He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, his J.D. from the University of​ California, Berkeley, and his Dipl.GB in international business from the University of Oxford.

    Edu Alliance Group, Inc. (EAG), founded in 2014, is an education consulting firm located in Bloomington, Indiana, and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. We assist higher education institutions worldwide on a variety of mission-critical projects. Our consultants are accomplished leaders who use their experience to diagnose and solve challenges.

    EAG has provided consulting and executive search services for over 40 higher education institutions in Australia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

    Source link

  • We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle

    We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle

    First, two children lost their father and a wife her husband. Then people lost their humanity. And now, a nation loses another piece of its soul. This part of the cycle is its own special kind of awful: the cancel culture machine.

    It goes like this: A tragedy happens. Someone reacts by celebrating that tragedy for whatever reason. Then the social media mob comes to demand this person be fired, expelled, or otherwise punished for their views.

    Time and time again, we resort to this mob mentality when tragedy strikes. When Barbara Bush died. When the Queen died. Rush Limbaugh. Otto Warmbier. George Floyd. After 9/11. After October 7. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

    As free speech advocates, it places us in a painful position. Charlie Kirk’s assassination was an attack on free speech and open discourse. In a free society, we must not be afraid to express our views, no matter how strongly some might oppose them. That’s the point of free speech. But it is precisely for that reason why we must not respond to mockery of Kirk’s assassination by canceling everyone who offends us: because that too creates a society where people are afraid to express themselves.

    Cancel culture ends when we decide that people can be horrifically wrong and still entitled to the grace that enables us all to grow from our worst moments. 

    Among the people targeted in the aftermath of Kirk’s heinous murder include:

    Businesses

    • The Carolina Panthers have fired a PR staffer for social media posts.
    • A DC comic book writer has had her series cancelled for her social media posts.
    • PHNX Sports has fired a staff writer for his posts.
    • The general manager of a burger restaurant in Quincy, Illinois, was fired for a post.
    • A restaurant in Wayzata, Minnesota, said it would review security camera footage and fire any employee seen to have celebrated.
    • Wausau River District has fired their executive director over her social media post.
    • A political contributor to MSNBC was fired over his on-air comments; Cumberland University in Lebanon, Tennessee, subsequently cancelled a scheduled speech.

    Schools and universities

    • The Florida Department of Education has said it would investigate every teacher who makes “disgusting comments” about the tragedy.
    • An assistant dean of Middle Tennessee State University has been fired for a social media post.
    • Naples (NY) Central School District has started a formal investigation of one staff member’s posts.
    • A cheerleading coach from Meridian (ID) High School was fired over a video.
    • A teacher at Ridgeview Elementary School in Lakeside, Florida, has been suspended for her posts.
    • A teacher at Greenville (SC) County Schools was suspended and then terminated for his post after a member of congress called for his firing.
    • A teacher at Lake Norman Charter School in Huntsville, North Carolina, has been placed on leave pending an investigation of his post.
    • A teacher at Gaston County (NC) Schools is under investigation for their post.
    • A teacher at the School District of Lancaster (PA) is facing some action, described as a “personnel matter,” for their posts.
    • A teacher at Lee County (FL) School District is being investigated for their post.
    • The University of Mississippi fired an executive assistant over her post, after a member of the state house said he would vote against continued university funding until her firing.
    • Linden (NJ) Public Schools had to shelter in place after the school received threats because a post was erroneously claimed to have been written by an employee. In reality, the author never worked there.
    • A teacher at Wachusett (MA) Regional School District has been suspended for her social media posts.
    • A teacher at Framingham (MA) Public School District has been suspended for her social media video.
    • A teacher at Vassar (MI) Public Schools has been suspended for her social media posts.
    • A teacher at Oksaloosa (IA) High School has been suspended for his social media post after U.S. Rep. Marionette Miller-Meeks promised to contact the school.
    • A teacher at the Cleveland Heights-University Heights (OH) School District has been suspended for alleged social media posts.
    • A professor at East Tennessee State University has reportedly been suspended after state lawmakers complained about his posts.

    Legislators and government officials

    • The U.S. State Department has warned that it will review the legal status of immigrants who mock the tragedy.
    • U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn and U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles have called for the firing of a Cumberland University professor over his post.
    • U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert has called for the firing of a Colorado Department of Health staffer for a social media post.
    • U.S. Rep. Riley Moore has called on West Virginia University to remove a state lawmaker from a gender equity council based on her posts.
    • A Michigan state senator has demanded a University of Michigan professor be fired for his post.
    • A Virginia state senator has demanded a dean at the Chesterfield School Board be fired for her posts.
    • A Texas state senator has demanded a teacher be fired for liking someone else’s post.
    • A city councilman in Jacksonville, Florida, called for the removal of a city appointee over a now-deleted post.
    • A South Carolina state lawmaker called for the firing of a Clemson University professor over his posts.
    • The Louisiana attorney general is calling for the firing of a New Orleans firefighter for a now-deleted post.
    • The Toledo Fire Department is investigating one firefighter’s post. 

    Have no doubt: There will be more. 

    A website is actively soliciting reports of posts “celebrating Charlie’s death” to preserve them for, presumably, posterity. (Take my word for it or don’t. Linking the website would tend to undermine the larger goal here.)  And in a counter-cancellation remarkable for its willingness to victim-blame, a Tennessee lawmaker has called for all events by Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, to be cancelled “out of fear of violence and threat to public safety.” 

    When state lawmakers and officials make demands to employers to fire people for their speech, those demands can violate the First Amendment. When private people and businesses do the same, it undermines the culture of free expression we all want to cultivate. To be clear, a business owner can fire employees for any lawful reason. At times, a misalignment of values or a need to retain customers will be those perfectly legitimate reasons. But performative firings are participation in a cancel culture that undermines American values.

    Violence must never be a response to speech

    America must be an open society where we feel safe to share our ideas in the public square, not just from behind bulletproof glass and bulletproof vests.


    Read More

    None of us are immune to these instincts. Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, maintains a Professor Watchlist. As we noted back when it was launched in 2016, the watchlist is protected speech. But as we also noted and predicted, the watchlist has been used to call for sanctions on professors for their protected academic expression, contributing to the scourge of cancel culture. We have opposed those calls, too.

    Governments and lawmakers must do better. The rest of us should do better, too. 

    When someone indulges their worst impulses after a tragedy, we should use our own voices to challenge them. Or if we’re really courageous, we can be like Daryl Davis, a black musician and activist who through love, compassion, and constructive dialogue has convinced dozens of people to leave and denounce the Ku Klux Klan. We should remember we don’t win an argument by ruining someone’s life. We just ruin someone’s life. 

    We are not so fortunate, in this imperfect world, that Charlie Kirk’s murder is the last tragedy we experience. Nor is it the last time that some of us take a moment that calls for compassion and fill it with vitriol. If we (as a society) were to wait for either of those things to stop being true before ending cancel culture, that’s the same as ceding freedom of speech to the assassins and the mobs. 

    Cancel culture ends when we decide that people can be horrifically wrong and still entitled to the grace that enables us all to grow from our worst moments. 



    Source link

  • The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 3: ISED

    The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 3: ISED

    Monday, we looked at the country’s overall financial situation (dire), and yesterday we looked at how cuts of a magnitude of 15% might affect key programs like the Canada Education Savings Program and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program. Today, we’re going to look at how a 15% cut might affect the Government of Canada’s research subsidies, which in the main are run through the Ministry of innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). 

    (I will be speaking about “the tri-councils” as a single funding line; I am aware that the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) is funded through Health Canada but for this exercise it is easier just to lump them together).

    Let’s start by acknowledging that ISED is a sprawling mess of a department with small programs with very little political protection littered all over the place. I wouldn’t bet the farm on the $12 million “Futurpreneur Canada” making it out of this budget round alive. I also doubt the Universal Broadband Fund is going to continue at $900 million per year. Computers for Schools (sounded great in the 90s, less so now) and Computers for Schools Interns would also be on my endangered list. I suspect that the various regional development funds might be in for an outsized hit as well. All of which is to say that it is possible that the research enterprise – that is, the tri-Councils, the National Research Council (NRC), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and all those organizations that get part or all their money through the Strategic Science Fund – might not get hit with a 15% cut. It’s quite possible all these other areas might take an outsized hit and allow the actual science stuff to get off with a lighter cut.

    That said, remember this key point: the budget exercise is not about cutting 15% of funding from where it should theoretically be in three years’ time (the government has a fiscal framework that extends out four or five years). It is about cutting expenditures from a 2024-25 baseline. That means that to get through any previously planned increase in spending, the cuts to existing programs must be more than 15%. 

    This matters for two reasons. First, it is because the government runs its subsidies to electric vehicles manufacturers through ISED. Those subsidies were worth $39M in 2024-25; they were planned to cost $2.1 billion this year and $4.2 billion in 2027-28 (i.e. it’s about half the department’s direct budget spend come two years from now, and about a third of total sci/tech spend if you include the tri-councils). To accommodate that increase while following the letter of the budget reduction request would basically mean requiring the entire department to shut down. That’s probably not happening (though one presumes that Carney’s announcement last week releasing Canadian auto manufacturers from their 20% EV sales target in 2026 might also lead to a reduction in EV subsidies to manufacturers). 

    Second, remember budget 2024? The one where the Liberals promised $1.8 billion in new spending on research and the whole sector cheered with relief? Yeah, well only $75 million went into the budget framework for 2024-25; 87% of that 1.8 billion is backloaded until after spring 2026. So, basically none of it is protected, and it’s all at risk. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if they just cancelled the whole thing. And then, on top of that, we must worry about what happens to existing programs, and whether they take a 15% hit.

    CIHR transfers about $1.2 billion to Canadian post-secondary institutes each year, while the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) transfers about $1 billion, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) transfers about $440 million (although a fair bit of that last one includes combined tri-council projects which administratively run through SSHRC, including – if I am not mistaken – funding for the Canada First Research Excellence Fund). CFI is another $550 million a year or so. NRC is about $1.7 billion per year. The Strategic Science Fund is another $900 million or so, closer to a billion if you include base funding for Genome Canada. Canada Research Chairs are another $300 million. Call it $6.2 billion in total. Required savings to get to a 15% cut is therefore just under $1 billion.

    Where to start?

    Ask most researchers at universities what they would prefer, and the answer is likely that they would eliminate everything except the tri-council funding. Ditch CFI, significantly cut NRC, definitely obliterate the Strategic Science Fund – anything, anything, anything but touch tri-Council grants. I understand the preference, but as I noted last week, this is a monumentally detrimental position for the sector to take. Yes, basic research and the existing grant system are the basis of the existing tenure and promotion system, and as such is naturally dear to those in the system, but almost no one in Ottawa thinks that’s what these systems are for. If we’re going to keep research funding afloat, it’s probably going to be through more spending on things like the Strategic Science Fund.

    I have very little insight into the state of official Ottawa’s current thinking on the relative value of these various programs, but I could imagine three basic scenarios that get us to $1 billion in savings.

    Option 1 is a straight 15% cut across the board. Take out $400 million or so from the granting councils, $80 million from CFI, $250 million from NRC, cut the Strategic Science Fund and Genome Canada to the tune of $150 million or so, and lose about 350 Canada Research Chairs. 

    Option 2 would be the spare the professors approach. Now, you probably can’t spare them entirely, because they are such a big proportion of the overall expenditure, but if you jacked up the cuts to CFI, NRC and Strategic Science to say 25%, you could hold the losses to CRCs and the tri-councils to under $100M. I think this is unlikely, but it is a possible scenario.

    Option 3 would be the hammer the tri-councils approach. Because, as I said, I don’t think they are particularly well-liked at Finance/PMO. This is close to the inverse of option 2; zero cuts to NRC and Strategic Science, keep the CFI cut at 15% and take the rest of the necessary money out of the tri-councils. That would mean a cut of about $800 million or about 30% to council funding.

    And remember, all of this is on top of walking back the measures announced in the 2024 Budget. Ugly doesn’t even begin to cover it.

    To be clear: I suspect it is unlikely that the research area will get a cut of 15%, in part because officials will feel bad about doing serious damage to existing budgets after, I suspect, already taking away the Budget 2024 measures. If I had to guess, I would say that the department will probably come down hardest on regional development subsidies. Nevertheless, the scenarios above are possible even if not probable. Universities should start thinking about what they might mean and how they might cope. 

    Source link

  • The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 2: ESDC

    The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 2: ESDC

    Yesterday, I explained why the federal government now finds itself in a position where it has to cut program budgets by at least 15% just to keep the budget deficit to $50 billion by 2028. Today, I am going to explain how this will play out at Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), which plays a major role in funding for skills and education in Canada, mainly through the Canada Education Savings Program (CESP) and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program (CSFAP).

    Now, just a note at the start. It is vanishingly unlikely that the feds will actually look for 15% savings in every program. The 15% rule is for the Department as a whole, and ESDC is one big mother of a department. It includes all sorts of programs including EI (which in theory is exempt from cuts), and child care.

    So, let’s start with CESP, which delivers about a billion dollars a year via matching grants to parents saving for their kids’ education via Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs). This program doesn’t allow for a lot of nuance in cutting. The program gives out about $1.1 billion a year in Canada Education Savings Grants (CESGs), roughly 85% of which goes on a basic 20 cent-to the dollar match rate and about 15% of which goes to “additional” (i.e. higher) matching rates for lower-income Canadians (A-CESGs). It also runs the Canada Learning Bond Program, which is another roughly $150 million per year which is a non-matching grant of up to $2000 to children from low-income backgrounds to start their educational savings.

    There are basically four options here:

    1) The government could cut program spending across the board by 15%. That is, it could lower the base CESG matching rate from 20% to 17%, and A-CESG payment rates for lower income contributors to 26.5% and 34% from the current 30% and 40%. That would save about $150 million/year. It could also reduce the CLB payout to $1700.  

    2) The government could eliminate the A-CESG pieces entirely and go with a flat 20% coverage. That’s a pretty quick way to a 15% reduction.

    3) The government could axe the CLB. Again, a very quick way to get close to 15% reduction.

    4) The government could hold the A-CESG and CLB harmless and reduce the CESG base rate even further, to about 15%.  

    Now, personally, I think CESG probably comes out of this unscathed – that is, a 0% cut – because it’s one of the most popular government programs in existence. But these options give you a sense of what cuts might be, if applied uniformly across the department.

    (Yes, there are also presumably some savings to be made on the personnel side, but it’s a pretty simple and lean program – if you could get savings equal to even 0.5% of total expenditures from that, I’d be shocked).

    Let’s now head over to CSFAP spending and see how that might fare. It’s a bit more complex than CESG so it’s worth looking at its basic cost-structure. Using data from the CSFAP’s 2023 Actuarial report, it’s possible to look at overall direct program costs, as shown below in Figure 1. Technically, this is not a full state of program costs because there’s another billion or so in “alternative payments” to jurisdictions that do not participate in the CSFAP (i.e. Quebec, Nunavut and the NWT). But since this sum is calculated as a fraction of direct programs, we can more or less ignore them here – a 15% cut of the direct costs automatically translates through to a 15% cut in alternative payments as well. And our target number – given that CSFAP direct expenses are about $4.2 billion – would be about $628 million.

    Figure 1: Major areas of CSFAP spending, in millions, 2023-24

    So where do you carve out that much money from CSLP? Well for starters we could and should get rid of the $429 million we spent eliminating interest on loans after graduation. These subsidies do nothing for access; rather, they boost the incomes of middle-class 20–30-year-olds who have already finished school. And it is not a long-standing program. It is, in fact, a quite recent thing, announced by then-finance minister Chrystia Freeland in 2023 when the Liberals were desperately trying to throw a bone to house-poor urban twenty-somethings who at the time were threatening to vote not-Liberal. Now cutting this wouldn’t be a straight $429 million savings – loss of that subsidy would likely lead to increases in bad debt and Repayment Assistance program (RAP) charges somewhat. So, let’s call that a $350M win.  

    Where to find the other $275 million? Not administration: most of the admin money is tied up in payments to provinces for running the front end of the program or to the National Student Loans Service Centre (an outsourced agency which resides over by Square One in Mississauga for running the back end), neither of which can easily be changed in the short term. Maybe you could lose a couple of million in staff costs but not much more. Very little you can do about bad debts either.  RAP and interest subsidies before consolidation could be made less generous. In particular, the income threshold for access to RAP could be brought back down from the current $45K (roughly – it depends on family size) to say $38K, and interest during school could be brought up from zero to the current inflation rate or the government rate of borrowing (i.e. somewhere between 2 and 2.5%). I don’t have access to detailed financial figures on this, but my guess is that the RAP measure might save $50M or so; in-school interest might get you $100M.

    That still doesn’t quite get us to the required $625 million, so the only option left here is to start hacking away at grants. A straight cut in the maximum grant would be the easiest way to cut costs; bringing that down from $4200/year to, say, $3500/year would reduce spending by something along the lines of $400M/year. Another and more likely option would be for the feds to copy what Doug Ford did when he wanted to contain student aid costs – change grant eligibility criteria in such a way as to make grants harder to obtain. The obvious way to do this, I think, would be to change the rules for dependent/independent student status (i.e. the point at which students are considered to no longer get money from their parents) so that it took students five years to reach such independent status instead of four. I am not exactly sure how much that would save, but I’d wager it would be a minimum of a quarter-billion. 

    So, your menu of cut options for cutting CSFAP is, essentially:

    Bring back interest after graduation $350 million
    Admin $3-5 million
    Reduce RAP threshold to $38K $50 million
    Introduce in-school interest of 2.5% $100 million
    Cut maximum grants by $700/year $400/million
    Change definition of independent student $250 million

    (To be clear here, I am guessing a bit on some of these numbers. Intelligently, I hope, but they are guesses. Don’t take the numbers here as gospel. And if any friends at CSLP want to correct me, please do!)

    If it were me, to get to (roughly) the required $625 million I’d bring back interest after graduation – or introduce an equal-to-government-rate-of-borrowing interest rate for the entire life of the loan, which probably ends up with similar savings – and change the definition of independent students. Neither are pleasant but these are the ones that would probably affect access the least.  

    (Again, the Liberals may choose not to cut anything in CSFAP, because hey this is an income security program of a sort, and if we’re obsessing about “affordability” – but that just means cuts elsewhere in the portfolio will be larger).

    Of course, ESDC is much more than these two programs. Take a gander at the full list of programs the programs the Ministry runs (I make it about fifty if you include everything). A lot of those are scattered skills initiatives like Youth Employment and Skills, Indigenous Skills and Employment Training, the Skills and Partnership Fund, Skills for Success Program, the Innovative Work-integrated Learning Initiative. I have no idea what most of these do exactly, nor is it easy to access any budget data about them. But let’s put it this way – few of these programs have a particularly large policy constituency to back them up. My guess is that cuts across these programs will be significantly higher than 15% and some of them may cease to exist altogether.  

    Enough for today.  Tomorrow we’ll do research funding.

    Source link

  • The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 1

    The Coming Federal Cuts – Part 1

    The biggest thing everyone is going to be talking about this year – barring another university doing a surprise Laurentian – is the set of federal cuts coming down the pike. They are big. And they are nasty. So, it’s worth understanding exactly the scale of what is heading in our direction. This is going to be a three-parter. Today, I will talk about the overall size of the cuts to come, and on Tuesday and Wednesday I will talk about how this will affect the two ministries that have the most to do with post-secondary education: Employment and Skills Development Canada (ESDC, tomorrow) and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED, Wednesday).

    So: we don’t know the exact scope of the budget cuts the government is contemplating. What we do know is the following:

    Preliminary budget figures for Fiscal 2024-25 show that the government of Canada posted a budget deficit of $43.2 billion on revenues of $495B, program expenses of $480B, debt charges (that is, interest on existing debt) of $54B and actuarial losses of $4B. We didn’t have a budget this spring, but spending projections for 25-26 from the 2024-25 budget show a projected deficit of $39 billion on revenues of $515B, program expenses of $496B, debt charges of $55B and actuarial losses of $2B.

    The Liberal Manifesto for election 2025 planned deficits of $60 billion or so right through to 2028-29. Its fiscal plan was basically i) existing spending commitments, ii) 30-odd billion in new spending and tax cuts and iii) tiny revenue changes, plus $20 Billion or so in counter-tariffs for 2025-26. (Yes, they also promised “savings from increased productivity” – otherwise known as “frantic handwaving” – of $6B, $9B and $13B in fiscal years ’27, ’28 and ’29. I am excluding them here but will return to them in a sec).

    Figure 1: Government of Canada fiscal picture according to the Liberal manifesto, minus the handwaving, in Billions.

    (The foregoing might all sound strange to those of you who recall Carney making pledges about balanced budgets. But, of course, as I pointed out back here, he never actually promised that. He promised balanced operating budgets, that is budgets with an only vaguely defined “capital spending” netted out. By a complete coincidence, the Liberal platform claimed the government spent roughly $50 billion in capital, so basically the government is already basically in balance.  Neat trick, but not sure bondholders will see it that way. I digress.)

    Since the election, a few things have happened. Counter-tariffs are not collecting anything like the $20 billion forecast, we ditched the Digital Services Tax in a futile attempt to get the Americans to be nicer to us, and, most importantly of all, the prime minister promised to up defense spending by about $18 billion over the next four years in order to reach 2% of GDP by 2028. That means the actual fiscal picture, before any handwaving about savings, looks like this:

    Figure 2: Government of Canada fiscal picture, according to the Liberal Manifesto, minus the handwaving, including proposed spending and tariffs since April 28, in Billions.

    As you can see, we are a lot further away today from “operating balance” (i.e. a $50B deficit) than we were when Carney was elected. And this is where the handwaving/cuts come into play. So, let’s start thinking about how much money it would take to keep us at “operating balance”. In Figure 3, we see that by 2028-29, we are looking at about $32 Billion in cuts. The handwaving “efficiencies” in the Liberal manifesto were meant to cover just $13 billion of that, leaving another $19.2 billion or so to be made up, somewhere, somehow.

    Figure 3: Cuts Required Just to Keep the Government of Canada at Operating Balance (i.e. a $50B deficit), By Source, in Billions.

    I said “somewhere”, but there isn’t much mystery here. As Figure 4 shows, you divide government spending into four categories: debt charges (which the government has to pay regardless), transfers to provinces (which Carney has promised he won’t touch), transfers to individuals (ditto) and then “program spending”. As Figure 4 shows, the first three areas make up 58% of total spending. That means that the last area, program spending, is going to take up the entirety of these cuts. In 2025-26, program spending is estimated at $227 billion; a $32 billion cut to that equals an overall reduction in program spending of 14% by 2028. (Coincidentally, this was more or less exactly the size of the program cuts in the “savage” 1995 budget – $7 billion phased in over three years on a base budget of about $52 billion. Government grew back, as you can see.)  

    Figure 4: Government of Canada Expenditures by Category, 2025-26

    It’s worth being careful here. Overall program spending is $227 billion, but $46 billion of that is currently being spent on defense and housing, two areas that are almost certainly immune to cuts given the government’s overall priorities. Excluding these two fields from cuts means that the field of “cuttable” programs shrinks to $181 billion, and the size of the cuts required to meet the $50 billion target balloons to 17.7%.  

    This brings us to the program review that has been going on in Ottawa since July. Recall that Minsters were asked to bring forward scenarios that involved cuts of 7.5% for next year, 10% the year after that and 15% the year after that. Many thought initially that these numbers were deliberately overdone so that big cuts could be made in some departments so as to shield other departments from having to do the same. Now I am not so sure. That 15% target is awfully close to the 17% overall target the Liberals need to hit just to keep the deficit at $50 billion, and so I am starting to think that in fact the cuts might not be dispersed unequally between departments. They might really need 15% from everybody – and then some.

    There are a couple of alternatives of course that could lessen the blow. For instance, while Carney promised not to cut transfers to provinces, to my knowledge he never ruled out cutting the rate of growth of transfer payments (currently about 5% per year, across CHT, CST and equalization combined). Slash that in half and you’ve got yourself another $8 billion to play with by 2028, thereby reducing by a quarter the required amount of program cuts. Something similar could be achieved by de-indexing pensions for a couple of years. Or, unlikely as it seems, the Government could actually increase taxes (elbows up requires some sacrifices, no?). But, absent those measures, I think we need to seriously brace for impact. These cuts are real, they are huge, and even if they don’t hit this fall (it’s not impossible that the alleged fall budget might actually just be the usual fall economic statement under another name), they are for sure going to hit in early 2026.

    The question, really, is, what needs to be saved? What should the sectors’ priorities be? I’ll discuss that over the next two days.

    Source link