Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility

Summary and Recommendations

This document is a hypertexted version of the first chapter of the Government of Ontario "Smith Commission" Report, Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility: Report of the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education. The Ministry has published it electronically in an Adobe Acrobat-readable version at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/reports.html.

It has been hypertexted by Professor John Lye of Brock University so that those people who have WWW access but do not have the equipment or the expertise to download and run Adobe Acrobat may have electronic access to the main findings of the Report. It is entirely lynx-friendly.

P.S. While you are in the neighbourhood, why not visit my pages?

CONTENTS

Approach | Themes

Recommendations:

The Way Ahead

1 Our Approach to the Mandate

The Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education was appointed in mid-July, 1996 by the Minister of Education and Training, with the following terms of reference:
  1. to recommend the most appropriate sharing of costs among students, the private sector, and the government, and ways in which this might best be achieved;
  2. to identify ways to promote and support co-operation between colleges and universities, and between them and the secondary school system in order to meet the changing needs of students;
  3. to provide advice on what needs to be done to meet the expected levels of demand for postsecondary education, both with reference to existing public institutions and existing or proposed private institutions.

The Panel was asked to report by December 15, 1996, which necessitated an accelerated approach to consultation and development of our advice. We did not have the time to explore some topics with the care and depth they deserve, and we have noted at various places in the report where we think further study is needed. We drew, however, on the expert knowledge of many people and on the findings of the many studies and reviews of postsecondary education that have been conducted over the past 25 years. We were able to build on their insights.

Our consultation turned out to be extraordinarily interesting and helpful. We met with represent tives of every university and college of applied arts and technology, usually in a roundtable format that paired colleges and universities. We were interested in hearing from students, faculty, staff, governors , and administrative officers. Because of the importance, diversity and large size of the student constituency, Panel members made special efforts to meet separately with groups of students at va r ious institutions. The Panel met with representatives from a number of provincial-level organizations, including associations of students, faculty and staff, business and community groups, research and labour organizations, and the general public. Private vocational schools and institutes were also invited to participate.

We met with people from outside the postsecondary sector who could bring a broader perspective to the public policy issues. In addition, we welcomed written briefs from anyone on any aspect of our mandate. While our schedule did not permit meetings with everyone who contacted us, we read all the briefs carefully. A summary of our consultations is in Appendix A of this report.

The number (185) and quality of the briefs attest to the serious and widespread concern about the future of Ontario's postsecondary education sector. We regret that time has not permitted us to incorporate in our report many important arguments contained in the briefs, but, because they are public documents, the briefs will continue as a rich source of information for future studies.

We received, for example, important briefs from aboriginal groups. We applaud and encourage their search for policies that will fit their distinctive needs and will ensure appropriate standards. We came to understand more fully the special needs of northern universities and colleges which must provide a reasonably comprehensive set of programs to geographically dispersed students and the special needs of Franco-Ontarians for programs that are both widely available in French and of high quality. We believe the issues these groups face merit careful attention, but we felt our time was too limited to develop recommendations in these areas that we could advance with confidence.

Appended to our report is a Background Paper by our colleagues, David M. Cameron and Diana Royce. It is a history of postsecondary education in Ontario that provides a valuable context and perspective on the issues of the present.

Our Themes: Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility

Before turning to our recommendations, we wish to note briefly the sense we have gained of the overall importance of the topic and the themes that have dominated our thinking.

A first-rate and accessible set of universities and colleges will contribute substantially to the economic, social and cultural development of our society. We thus believe deeply that a high priority should be placed on ensuring that Ontario is outstanding in postsecondary education and associated research activity. The benefits of meeting this priority are enormous, as are the costs of not meeting it. The Panel believes that the basic structure of Ontario's postsecondary sector is sound. There is no need to impose a grand new design. Howevr, there are clear signs that the postsecondary sector is under pressure. The Panel is convinced that, without significant change in the way the sector is evolving and the way it is resourced, its quality and accessibility will be undermined, along with institutional capability to deliver the broad range of programs and the high calibre of research that will be needed in future. We must be careful to preserve existing strengths, but we must also recognize that change is necessary to meet the needs of learners and society in the twenty-first century.

Success in meeting this challenge will depend greatly on the fulfilment of many interrelated and shared responsibilities. Thus,

A general principle we endorse that draws together some of these responsibilities and focuses on the learning experience is as follows:Postsecondary education must evolve in a way which provides the opportunity for a high-quality learning experience to every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it.

The framework within which these shared and inter-related responsibilities can best be developed to produce excellence and accessibility should have, in our view, a number of characteristics:

To promote excellence in postsecondary education and associated research activities, to prov i d e accessibility for learners to a wide variety of high-quality learning opportunities, and to establish a framework of shared responsibility to build a postsecondary sector well-prepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, the Panel makes the following recommendations.

Recommendations

Adequacy of Total Financial Support

Total financial support for colleges and universities from public and private sources has become seriously inadequate in recent times. This assessment is based on a variety of measures we have examined, including total financial support available to public postsecondary institutions in other jurisdictions in North America. We believe that the correction of this situation, now and in the future, should be a widely shared responsibility in Ontario.

Recommendation 1

We recommend that Ontarians undertake to correct the current serious inadequacies in total financial resources available to postsecondary education. This undertaking is a shared responsibility that includes government, postsecondary institutions, students and their families, and the private sector.

The Level of Government Support

Recent sharp reductions in government grants to Ontario colleges and universities followed a long period of restraint over the past twenty years. The adverse financial impacts are apparent in many indicators. For example:

Tuition fees have increased substantially in Ontario, but the increase has only partly offset the decline in direct government support. To reduce the impact of higher fees on accessibility, additional government funds have flowed to student assistance programs.

These indicators, along with much other evidence submitted to us, lead us to the conclusion that public financial support for postsecondary education in Ontario is seriously inadequate Ð indeed it has become so low that the sector's competitive position in North America is dangerously at risk. Much time, effort, and resources have been devoted to building the structure of colleges and universities that Ontario needs. It would be extraordinarily short-sighted to let it crumble now.

Thus, while we appreciate the call for all sectors to share in the general constraints on public expenditures, we believe that much attention must also be given to priorities in a longer-term context. A first-rate postsecondary education system is vital for Ontario's future. To meet this priority, we are convinced that the system should not sustain further reductions in grants, and that a medium-term goal should be for government support to approximate the average of other Canadian provinces and to close the gap with public funding of major public university and college systems in the United States. Recommendation 2

We recommend that provincial government support of universities and colleges in Ontario be comparable to the average for other Canadian provinces and be reasonably in line with government support of major public university and college systems in the United States. This goal should be achieved by arresting reductions in government grants now and by building towards this goal over several years in ways that strengthen excellence and accessibility.

Distribution of Government Funding

The present method of distributing the government's core operating grants to universities through a corridor system appears to be working well. The corridor funding system provides a buffering from enrolment changes. Within a specified band of enrolment, an institution's share of grants and fees remains unchanged. This system has brought greater stability to shares of revenue than in the past, and it has been conducive to planning. But care is needed to prevent helpful stability from becoming undesirable rigidity. We recognize that, on occasion, minor modifications may be desirable to reduce barriers to adjustments. For example, a university that is closing or reorganizing programs might seek permission to dip temporarily below its lower corridor limit without severe financial penalty.

There is a longer-term issue that should be recognized. Enrolments are projected to increase sub-stantially, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, over the next ten to fifteen years. Ontario's universities and colleges have expressed confidence that they can absorb the projected enrolment increases. In addition, the tuition fee policy we recommend later in this report will strengthen incentives to respond to enrolment pressures. However, in light of the impact a major increase in enrolment would have on the corridor system, the situation should be monitored regularly in the years ahead. Recommendation 3

We recommend that the major features of the corridor system for distributing the government's core operating grants to universities be maintained with minor modifications to enhance flexibility.

The present method of distributing the government's operating grants to colleges of applied arts and technology - which is essentially a moving average of three years' enrolment - creates undue sensitivity to enrolment and undue dependence of one college's finances on enrolment policies of other colleges. A corridor system, adapted to the special features of colleges, would assist them, we believe, in managing change. Implementation issues, including transition to a new system, will need to be addressed. Recommendation 4

We recommend that the method of distributing the government's core operating grants to colleges change to a form of corridor funding, reflective of circumstances faced by colleges, with attention to other issues such as the appropriate relationship of support for part-time and full-time students.

Research Funding and Policy

Research is an integral part of the functioning of all universities, although some are evolving as more research-intensive than others. Canadians are highly dependent on universities for basic research and scholarship. Because basic research produces a public good, it requires public funding, much of which comes through federal granting councils but which is also influenced by provincial research policies. A particular difficulty for universities has been that awards from granting councils carry no allowance for associated indirect costs, such as library, equipment, space and principal investigators' salaries, and we do not think the assignment of a higher weight to graduate student enrolment has solved this problem. Moreover, we are concerned by evidence of a slippage in recent years in Ontario's share of peer-adjudicated research grants, especially since we believe research should be a high priority for public policy in Ontario.

It should also be noted that centres of specialization in applied research are emerging in colleges.

We urge the Province to consider a policy of focusing more of its limited resources on promoting excellence in research, through directing funds to the research overheads envelope to be distributed on the basis of measures of quality. Recommendation 5

i ) We recommend that the Government of Ontario increase the size of the Research Overheads/ Infrastructure Envelope from its current level of about $23 million to about $100 million annually.

i i ) We recommend that Ontario develop a research policy. This development is urgent in view of the growing concerns about Ontario's competitive position on research. The policy should cover both basic and applied research and should encompass research in both the public and private sectors.

Tuition Fees and Student Assistance

For the past three decades, government has controlled university tuition fees by establishing an annual formula fee applicable to broad categories of programs and allowing universities limited discretion to set actual fees above that level. Universities can set fees, but government controls fees by linking formula fee revenue with the allocation of operating grants: revenue from fees set above the formula rates results in reductions in operating grants. Government currently allows universities to charge fees up to 23% above the formula without penalty. For the colleges, the Province sets a standard tuition fee applicable to all postsecondary programs. For both systems, the government determines the allowable annual increase in fees.

The Panel believes that responsibility for setting fees should be shifted more to the universities and colleges. We support greater institutional flexibility to determine fees, program by program. Howeve r, this deregulation is conditional. Flexibility must be balanced by enhanced assistance for students in need. Our proposals are designed to ensure that, as we stated earlier, there is the opportunity for a high-quality learning experience for every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it.

With regard to shifting responsibility for setting fees more to universities and colleges, we propose that the following steps be taken: Recommendation 6

i ) We recommend that an institution should be free to set tuition fees at whatever level it regards as appropriate, program by program, on condition that if an institution chooses to set fees above the government-specified upper limit defined in (ii), it must distribute 30% of the incremental revenue as financial assistance to its students, based on need.

ii ) We recommend that the government set an upper limit on fees used to calculate the amount of government - provided student assistance for which a student would be eligible. There should be a single limit used for all institutions, both publicly- and privately-funded, participating in the public student assistance program.

iii ) We recommend that, with respect to compulsory ancillary fees, those initiated by student governments should continue to be determined by current processes, but all other ancillary fees should be incorporated in the overall tuition fee.

iv) We recommend that, along with greater freedom in setting fees, institutions should be sensitive to the need to protect students from substantial, unanticipated increases in tuition fees for programs in which they are currently enrolled. Institutions are encouraged to set tuition fees on the basis of programs of study - rather than on the basis of courses or terms - wherever this can reasonably be done. Moreover, institutions should make special efforts to allocate their financial assistance funds in a way that does not preclude a student, with the motivation and ability, from pursuing courses or programs with higher fees.

We recognize that tuition fees have increased dramatically in the past few years. Currently, the maximum tuition fee for full-time college students is $1,275. For full-time undergraduate university students, it is $2,935. The Panel is aware of students' concerns about increasing debt loads, which may be difficult to repay under the current fixed-term loan arrangements, and the impact of conversion from the grant-first program to a loan forgiveness program. Our recommendations address these and other concerns.

The Panel believes that a strengthened and much-enhanced system of provincial and institutional student assistance should be developed. We favour a mixture of sources of support: Recommendation 7

i ) We recommend that the government introduce an income-contingent loan repayment plan (ICLRP) that would have a number of helpful features to students, including:

ii ) We recommend that the income-contingent loan repayment plan be delivered as a joint federal-provincial student assistance plan, administered through the tax system, but that, if the federal government is not prepared to cooperate with Ontario in this task, the provincial government should take whatever steps are necessary to implement an ICLRP on its own. In this latter case, we would urge the federal government to provide appropriate assistance and support to this effort, including administering the tax aspects of the Plan under the Federal-Provincial Tax Collection Agreements and, if necessary, providing full compensation to Ontario to allow it to withdraw from the Canada Student Loans Plan and offer an integrated ICLRP option to Ontario students.

iii ) We recommend that, in place of the current approach on loan forgiveness under OSAP which creates uncertainties for students, a program of needs-based grants be introduced. Grants would be provided only to students in publicly-assisted colleges and universities.

iv ) We recommend that the Ministry investigate the causes for high rates of default on student loans. It should explore the use of penalties that would make postsecondary institutions with unusually high rates of default more responsible for the loss, but that would not weaken access to postsecondary education.

v ) We recommend that interest on money borrowed to pursue eligible postsecondary education programs should be deductible from income in calculating income tax. It is a clear principle of income taxation that interest paid on money borrowed to earn income should be tax deductible, and taking out a loan to make an investment in education is analogous to taking out a loan to make a business investment. This measure should be implemented by the Government of Canada, and we urge the Government of Ontario to indicate to the federal government that it supports such a change and is prepared to forego the provincial tax revenue involved.

vi ) We recommend that the present Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP) be brought closer to Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP) in order to encourage saving for postsecondary education. In particular, we urge that the federal government provide the same tax deductibility for RESP contributions that is available for RRSP contributions, and that it be possible to effect one-time transfers from RRSPs to RESPs within the total RESP limits. It should be possible to roll the accumulated investment income in RESPs that is not used for postsecondary education into a RRSP. The Government of Ontario should urge the Government of Canada to implement such a change soon. If the federal government is not prepared to proceed with this change, the provincial govern-ment should provide at least a partial tax credit for RESP contributions and the federal government should administer such a credit for the province.

Private Sector Support

Private sector support comes in many forms, including student fees and through the operation of privately-funded postsecondary institutions. In this section, however, we focus on private sector support provided through philanthropy, partnerships and the purchase of training services.

We think there is a potential for increased private donations and gifts, though the overall totals are likely to remain modest in relation to other major sources of revenue for colleges and universities. Moreove r, for a number of reasons, donations and gifts continue to be substantially lower in Ontario and Canada than in the United States. One reason is the preferential tax treatment given by the United States to capital gains associated with charitable gifts. A number of Canadian charitable organizations have pointed to this difference in discussions with the federal government and have argued that similar treatment in Canada would lead to significant increases in charitable giving without a major reduction in government tax revenues. Recommendation 8

We recommend that donations of assets be exempt from the capital gains tax. This change would benefit all charitable organizations.

Business and other organizations have many specific training needs that colleges and, to a lesser extent, universities can provide. Much of this support for training in the past came from federal direct purchases of labour market training from colleges, but this source has sharply declined and is due to be phased out soon. Greater responsibilities for training are being shifted to provinces as a result, and future opportunities for financing training programs will depend also on the interests of the private sector, as well as on developing international training programs. Given the shifting public and private sources of support for training, there is a need for improved means of coordinating va rious initiatives and for clearer provincial policies on negotiating with international agencies and governments. The regulatory framework should be supportive. Recommendation 9

We recommend that colleges explore more actively private and international training programs and that the provincial government's coordinating and regulatory role be supportive. The terms of centralized collective agreements in the colleges should take into account the need for flexibility to develop these programs. More broadly, there are growing opportunities for partnerships with private institutions on education and research programs. It is the responsibility of all colleges and universities to have guidelines that preserve the integrity of their institutions in such partnerships.

Roles and Linkages Among Colleges and Universities

We think the basic idea of a parallel system of colleges and universities is still sound, but there is an important evolution in their roles and linkages.

Since the creation of colleges in the mid-1960s, their mandate and missions have developed within a fairly elaborate regulatory and policy framework administered by the Ministry of Education and Training or its predecessors. The Panel supports some easing of the regulations. In particular, the application of prescribed geographical areas for a college's services may be imposing inappropriate limits on the overall scope of a college's services. While colleges should continue their commitments to the education and training needs of local communities, we believe there is no longer a need for g 'overnment-defined catchment areas. Geographic responsibilities should not be disincentives for the promotion of a college's unique resources on a province-wide basis. Recommendation 10

We recommend that government-defined catchment areas for colleges be abandoned. At the same time, colleges must continue to fulfill their obligations for education and training of their local or linguistic communities.

While we support a parallel system of differentiated colleges and universities, it is important to remove unnecessary barriers to students wishing to transfer among them and also to the sharing of services and facilities. We are encouraged by the degree of activity in recent years in developing linkages among the institutions and endorse the aims of the recently established consortium to further such linkages. Recommendation 11

We recommend that the arrangements for credit transfer and cooperative college-university programming, as well as for shared services and facilities, should develop further with government encouragement rather than with government direction. The advisory body we propose in this report should be responsible for stimulating and monitoring the evolving linkages.

The appropriate credentials for recognizing completion of college studies is a difficult issue to which we have given much thought and which has produced a spectrum of opinions in the college community. It is clear to us that college diplomas do not currently provide adequate recognition. It is also clear that there is much need for ongoing work to establish minimum standards across the college system for an Ontario College Diploma.

The Panel also considered whether colleges should be given degree-granting authority. There is a range of views on this issue, even among the colleges. While we are sympathetic to some of the arguments offered in favour of access to degree-granting status, we think it is better at this time to focus attention on strengthening recognition of the college diploma as a distinctive credential. Further review of this matter could be undertaken at a later time. Recommendation 12

i) We recommend that an Ontario College Diploma (OCD) be developed as a unique designation, backed by a review process on standards, and allowing for modifications to the credential to recognize particular specializations and accomplishments. The continued development of standards should be treated as an urgent matter. At this time, the OCD should be confined to Ontario's Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and to programs of these colleges that meet the established standards. We would not rule out the possibility that at a future date a private vocational school or career college might satisfy the standards for an OCD and be given authority to use this designation .

ii) We recommend that the awarding of secular degrees should continue to be a responsibility of universities at this time. It should be possible, however, for a college to transform to polytechnic degree-granting status and from there to a university.

Advice on Postsecondary Issues

There are important issues that cannot be addressed adequately by a ministry of education or by associations of universities and colleges. We thus propose establishing an advisory body on postsecondary education. In establishing such a body, measures should be taken to ensure that it not become an innovation stifling regulatory body, an expensive addendum that consumes funds which should be directed towards the basic work of colleges and universities, or a place for inappropriate political appointments. Indeed, the key to the advisory body's success will be the careful selection of its leadership, which should combine a high degree of credibility, integrity, and expert knowledge. With these words of caution, we nevertheless feel that such an advisory organization could bring substantial benefits.

Recommendation 13

We recommend the establishment of an advisory body to provide sustained, arms-length analysis of postsecondary education to help assure governments, students, private organizations and other groups that critical assessments, independent reviews and advice are an ongoing feature of Ontario's postsecondary system. It should be able to probe more deeply than the Panel has had time to do - and on a continuing basis - issues related to both colleges and universities. The body should be responsible for improving the publicly available information on postsecondary education and research. One of its responsibilities should be a regular report on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of system relative to those in other jurisdictions. Another responsibility should be to monitor, assess and report upon the adequacy of quality assurance and accountability processes for both colleges and universities.

Meeting Future Needs

Current demographic projections point to a substantial increase in population, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, in the next ten to fifteen years. While much uncertainty necessarily surrounds the projections of both population and the estimates of likely enrolment levels based on them, we think there will be significant pressures on colleges and universities to increase enrolment, particularly in the GTA. We are encouraged by the flexibility that existing institutions are showing in reorganizing the geographical sites for their programs and in developing innovative joint arrangements between and among colleges and universities. We think that there is still substantial flexibility in using existing physical facilities more intensively and that this flexibility will be further enhanced in the less regulated system we are recommending.

Recommendation 14

We recommend that, in order for colleges and universities to meet expected enrolment increases, the government should encourage institutional initiatives and arrangements for expanding the geo-graphic reach of programs and for using existing physical facilities more intensively, and should not plan at this time the construction of a new college or university.

Appointing and Retaining the Finest Teachers and Researchers

The excellence of universities and colleges depends critically on appointing and retaining the finest teachers and researchers. They tend to be mobile and are attracted to locate in areas where, in the future, they are likely to receive competitive compensation and research support and where they will be able to interact with other top scholars. Ontario should strive to be among the leading areas in North America in this regard. Much needs to be done to ensure this condition.

A particularly important step, in our view, would be a carefully structured program for faculty enewal. It would be based on the idea of a matching fund. This idea was very successfully introduced for student assistance in the spring of 1996 under the title of the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund and with a closing date of March 31, 1997. The government agreed to match private donations for student assistance and has estimated that the matching contribution would likely be about $100 million with a total endowment of twice that figure.

Under our proposal for a faculty renewal matching fund, university governing bodies would be expected to identify areas of particular need for faculty renewal. The matching fund would be directed to special funds or endowments for hiring "the best and the brightest", particularly in the early stage of their careers, and for retaining top senior scholars. For colleges, the identification of specific areas of need for faculty development is also important, and the fund should be available for such areas. Recommendation 15

We recommend the establishment of a special matching trust fund for faculty renewal. For universities, the program should focus on special funding or endowments for hiring and retaining outstanding junior and senior scholars in areas of strength identified by governing boards. For colleges, the program should support academic development of existing faculty.

Internal processes for recognizing and encouraging performance in teaching and research require close attention. We are concerned about internal regulations and agreements that suppress recognition of performance. It should be a clear responsibility of governing boards, as part of their accountability function, to ensure appropriate processes are in place to recognize performance. Recommendation 16

We recommend that governing boards of colleges and universities ensure that a high proportion of compensation increases is awarded in recognition of excellence in teaching and, in the case of universities, of research performance, and that, without becoming involved in individual cases, governing boards ensure that appropriate processes are in place to assess and reward performance.

We are aware that special issues arise for colleges on this matter, especially in view of their current centralized system of collective bargaining, but we believe they need greater flexibility at the institutional level in human resource management.

It is often suggested that the banning of tenure in universities would help improve performance, but we believe this step would not likely be helpful. For Ontario to take this step alone would add substantially to the costs of hiring and retaining faculty in Ontario. There are some important aspects of the original rationale for tenure that are still relevant, despite the security provided by developments in administrative law and by agreements on employment practices. The key issue is that there must be in place processes for the careful evaluation of teaching and research performance and for the taking of corrective measures, where needed. Recommendation 17

We recommend that, with regard to the terms of academic appointments, governing boards must fulfil their responsibility for ensuring that processes are in place for the effective evaluation of performance in teaching and, in the case of universities, in research, and that processes are in place to respond appropriately to the results of such evaluation, including corrective measures where performance is less than satisfactory.

Role for Privately Funded Universities

We have encountered much misunderstanding about various options that are referred to under the frequently misused term "privatization". For example, it is highly unlikely a sufficient endowment could be raised to convert any of Ontario's major universities to a university supported entirely by private funds. Existing universities and colleges are becoming more private in the sense that revenue from fees and other private sources has increased substantially relative to revenue from public sources. The emergence of some programs, such as MBA programs, the costs of which are fully covered without public funds is not in our view to be discouraged, but we think the possibilities for this type of conversion to full-cost funding are limited to a few professional programs.

Many private institutions now offer postsecondary education and training, including a large num-ber of private vocational schools or career colleges and several denominational institutions. Many of the former would like to have degree granting powers. But we think such a step would not be appropriate and suggest that the institutions develop and propose instead standards for distinctive credential s. With respect to the latter - denominational colleges - two have conveyed to us their wish to extend their degree-granting powers from degrees with a theological or religious designation to degrees with titles that secular institutions use. We think their distinctive and important studies should continue to carry theological or religious designations, unless such colleges become part of a university and its governing structures through affiliation. We encourage the Council of Ontario universities to develop general guidelines for institutional and program affiliation, which will assist potential applicants in their pursuit of such arrangements.

We come, finally, to the case of whether a proposal for a new private university - however meritorious - should ever be approved. We believe that such approval should be possible provided that strict conditions are followed as outlined in the body of our report. Recommendation 18

We recommend that Ontario's policy precluding the establishment of new, privately-financed universities be amended to permit, under strict conditions, the establishment of privately-financed, not-for-profit universities with the authority to grant degrees with a secular name. Strict conditions and standards must apply to institutional mission and governance structures; institutional and academic quality, as determined by nationally or internationally recognized peer review; financial responsibility; and protection of students in the event of institutional failure. These conditions and standards should be developed by the advisory body on postsecondary education recommended in this report.

The Way Ahead

Where do we go from here? In many areas we have been marking time, and in a fast-moving and highly competitive world, that means we have been slipping back. That is not acceptable for a province with the human and natural wealth and potential of Ontario. This province should be a leader, not a follower, in investing in its future. It has been a leader many times - when it shed discretionary funding in favour of Canada's first formula-driven grants, when John Robarts transformed the high school curriculum and embraced the idea of comprehensive secondary schools, and again when William G. Davis introduced the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. These were bold designs, and boldness is what we need once again.

What we do not need is to cast aside the progress we have made and impose a grand new design. We have been well served by our past. We should build on its legacy, rather than tear it down and start again. We must not, however, be prisoners of our past. There is much that is w rthy of praise along the road we have travelled, but there is much that needs to change on the way ahead. Boldness tempered by wisdom is needed in charting our future course. Pragmatism, not ideology, will best guide our journey.

There is one value we place above all others. That value is quality. We must not settle for second best. There is little room in the global village for second rate, especially in learning. Ontario should not accept second best in any branch of postsecondary education. It will mean transforming some institutions. It will require both patience and tenacity in moving beyond some institutional customs and agreements which serve more to protect mediocrity than to promote excellence. With such evident strain on our public resources, we cannot afford to invest in mediocrity.

Quality does not attach only to what one does, but has more to do with how it is done. Postsecondary education consists of many things: learning through research into the fundamental questions of humanity and nature; solving practical problems in industry; acquiring specific skills required in the marketplace; training for the ancient and emerging professions; discovering and transmitting the wisdom of the past, confronting the moral dilemmas of the present, and learning to take care for the future. This is not a hierarchy, in which "quality" work is marked by the task undertaken. Quality is marked by how well these things are done, and is every bit as important in practical study as in theoretical pursuits, in teaching as in research.

The servant of quality is specialization, requiring differentiation among our institutions. We cannot expect all to be excellent in everything. We cannot afford to support them as though they we r e. This is why we do not look for grand designs. Pushing institutions into prescribed boxes is not the route to quality. We believe profoundly that our postsecondary institutions need to have the room to experiment, to abandon what they cannot do well enough, and to concentrate their resources in areas in which they can. We want to free the creative spirit of the best minds within our institutions, not constrain them through central plans and regulatory controls. Equally important for both governmental and institutional leaders is that rewards must go to those who succeed and not to those who fail. We see no good reason to abandon the distinction between college and unive r s i t y. We think this duality captures an important reality in postsecondary education. We observe from our history how easy it is to smother the necessity of practical education in the superficial allure of snobbery masked as abstraction. Institutions will evolve, in the future as in the past, and we would make room for that. But we would also advise against falling victim to institutional gold-plating. We think it is time to set high standards, and to define the conditions most likely to achieve them. After that, others will have to take up the practical challenge of being leaders and learners. One of the conditions for this will be a much stronger willingness on the part of institutions, both across the binary divide, as well as outside the postsecondary sector, to cooperate and collaborate, in joint planning, in credit transfers and in creative partnerships

Which brings us to the question of accessibility. Who are these differentiated institutions intended to serve? Obviously they serve the whole of society, offering enormous returns on the investment in a highly trained and educated labour force, in research and development, in an informed and responsible citizenry. But there are also secondary benefits, accruing to individuals by virtue of their participation as students and scholars, not to mention their higher incomes and enhanced security of employment. Here, we praise the boldness of the John Robarts' declaration for the 1960s, and we offer the following to guide us into the next millennium: we must provide the opportunity for a high quality learning experience to every Ontarian who is motivated to seek it and who has the ability to pursue it.

Postsecondary education is not a constitutional right. Education cannot be given, nor received on emand. It must be acquired through active learning, and for most it is achieved only by dint of v ry hard work. We speak, therefore, not of rights but of shared responsibilities - of government, institutions, students, families, and private business.

This is not without financial consequences. Within the framework of shared responsibilities, we think it falls to government to ensure that the public colleges and universities of this province have an adequate and stable base of operating support. This is not now the case. In the current situation, the contribution of students and their parents, through tuition fees, will increase in some circumstances, if we are to escape the slippery slope to mediocrity. We accept this as necessary, but only on the condition that those qualified but in need are not barred from admission. Private institutions have played an enormously important role in our past, especially those sponsored by religious communities. The days of denominational control of universities have passed, although religious communities continue to play an important role in the delivery of religious, theo-logical and philosophical postsecondary education. However, there is no reason to bar secular participants. We would simply demand that the standards be no less high, and that stable and adequate re-enue from endowments must be demonstrated since there is no prospect for government support for such initiatives. The public, through taxation, has made a great investment in its provincial colleges and publicly assisted universities; it has every right to continue to reap the benefits.

Taxpayers have the right to be well served by these institutions, and to remove from them unnecessary barriers to necessary change and adaptation. We propose no attack on conditions required for scholarly inquiry, including academic freedom and institutional autonomy, properly understood. We do, however, find fault with practices that value security over quality and serve to constrain institutional flexibility. We have no interest in denying to employees the right to bargain collective l y, but we h ave grave concerns that the responsibility of governing boards to ensure that our colleges and universities are well managed may not always be given equal recognition.

Finally, we recognize that by placing a premium on deregulation and differentiation, we have created a consequent need to protect both public and private interests. There is a public obligation to secure truth in advertising, to protect students from exploitation, and to monitor and assure the quality of the postsecondary enterprise. It is not enough to establish the conditions for excellence; we must also ensure their continued vitality.

This is the route we offer for the future. It will require tough decisions, bold leadership, and hard work. In return, it promises rewards that have been the inspiration of civilized and prosperous societies throughout history. We have risen to the challenge in the past; we owe nothing less to the future.

Return to Top