CAUT | ACPPU
Canadian Association of University Teachers
Publications & Research
CAUT Analysis on the report of the Commission on Post-Secondary Education in New Brunswick
September 14, 2007
1. Introduction: Proposed changes
The Commission on Post-Secondary Education in New Brunswick has recommended sweeping changes to the province's system of post-secondary education. The commission calls for the closure of three university campuses and their replacement with three new polytechnics, the creation of a new commission for post-secondary education, the deregulation of tuition fees, and an overhaul of student financial assistance designed to replace grants with loans.
2. New polytechnic institutions
The commission proposes closing the Saint John campus of the University of New Brunswick and the Shippagan and Edmundston campuses of the Université de Moncton . These would be replaced by three new polytechnics to be located in Saint John, northwestern New Brunswick, and northeastern New Brunswick.
The proposed polytechnics would offer a more limited range of courses than the current universities they are replacing — mostly applied courses in science and technology as well as first year university courses, which, according to the commission, would be transferable to other universities in New Brunswick.
There is no mandate or funding for research attached to the proposed institutions, despite the commission’s call for them to have an applied research mandate. The commission estimates that the creation of these new institutions would only require $50 million in additional money over three years. It is difficult to imagine how new annual funding of less than $17 million could support the construction, operating and infrastructure costs of three new institutes. New Brunswick’s existing universities and colleges are the most poorly funded in the country, and this modest envelope of new funding for the polytechnics does not remedy the situation.
The proposal for the polytechnics also heralds a theme that dominates the report — an enhanced role for the private sector in directing education policy and tying programs more closely to labour market needs. The influence of the private sector was evident throughout the commission hearings and their influence and support is evident in the creation of the polytechnics. The call for more applied research is clearly a call for public subsidization of industry research.
As well, the report gives a false impression of the ability of post-secondary education programs tied to the labour market to address the systemic unemployment and income disparity in New Brunswick. Experience in other provinces has shown that education too closely tied to the labour market is more likely to chase fads than it is to produce sustainable economic development and training.
Though there are vague assurances that current students would not be dislodged from programs already started, there is no detailed plan about the transition for students and faculty at the affected campuses. Nor is there an admission that future students seeking a full university program would have to incur greater costs by leaving the current university communities.
A plan calling for the disruption in study for over 3000 current students and all future students seeking a university education demands a more comprehensive and sensitive plan than the one set in the commission’s report.
3. Governance and quality assurance models
The commission calls for the creation of a New Brunswick Higher Education Commission (NBHEC). The NBHEC would replace the work currently done by the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. The role of the NBHEC would include approval of degree granting status and overseeing quality assurance for all public and private institutions in New Brunswick.
The vision for the NBHEC is a largely econometric model that focuses on key performance indicators, labour market outcomes, and the commercialization of research. There is very little in the proposed new quality assurance process that strengthens or even respects the foundation of post-secondary education with its focus on critical independent thinking and basic research as well as applied research. There is no critical analysis in the commission report about the failure of New Brunswick’s current quality assurance process that has approved degree-granting status for substandard private institutions.
According to the proposal, the NBHEC will be comprised of representatives from university and community college administrations, education industry executives, and government appointees, with no dedicated seats for students or faculty.
In addition to the creation of a new commission, the report calls for the creation of a President’s Council comprised of the presidents of all of the public institutions in the province. This quasi-formal body would meet on a regular basis to share best practices and maintain a dialogue on how best to combine services and programs where possible.
4. Tuition Fees and student financial assistance
The report suggests major changes for tuition fee policy and student financial aid. Unfortunately the proposals represent a significant step backward and would seriously undermine access for New Brunswickers.
The report calls for the deregulation of tuition fees and recommends the province to emulate the approach undertaken by former Conservative premier Mike Harris in Ontario with respect to professional schools. The plan calls for the full deregulation of tuition fees with the sole proviso that institutions must set aside 30% of the new revenue from fee hikes for student financial aid. This policy in Ontario has led to tuition fees as high as $20,000 in programs to which it applies. Though the commission does say that fee hikes should be linked to enhancements in student aid, the plan does not take into account the substantial increase in aid that would be required if tuition fees are deregulated. Universities have shown a propensity to raise fees to maximum levels and it is a profound shortcoming of the report in that it does not plan for this contingency in its student financial aid plan. In short the plan makes unfounded and unfunded promises that deregulated tuition fees can be cushioned by adequate student financial aid.
The report also recommends that New Brunswick move away from supporting students with grants and offer increased loans instead. The commission calls for the elimination of the recently implemented $2,000 grant for first year students as well as the elimination of the substantial tax credit for tuition fees. In place of up front grants the commission calls for a “cap” of $7,000 per year on student debt. Such a proposal flies in the face of a compelling body of research that suggests that up front grants and not loans are the best approach to fostering access for underrepresented groups. The following chart drawn from a recent report on the effect of student debt on university persistence should give pause to any jurisdiction moving to an almost entirely loan based system:
Completion rates by level of student debt
Under $1,000 71%
$1,000- $1,999 59%
$2,000 - $2,999 64%
$3,000 - $9,999 51%
$10,000+ 34%
(From Lori McElroy, “Student Aid and University Persistence — Does Debt Matter?” Montreal: Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2005, p. 4.)
The accumulation of high student debt is, therefore, regressive in two distinct ways: those who accumulate high debt pay a premium for their education through interest, and those who incur high debt are less likely to see the full benefit of a post-secondary education because they are also less likely to graduate with a credential. Though the commission explicitly acknowledges the challenges of promoting access for aboriginal students and students from low income families, these proposals on student aid and tuition fees would increase the odds against equal access for under-represented groups in New Brunswick.
5. University funding
The commission calls for a new model of funding New Brunswick universities. The proposed model would set aside a small portion of base funding that all institutions would receive. The bulk of the remaining funding would be determined by enrolment levels based a three-year rolling average and a new special purpose fund.
Though there is some policy basis for funding based on a three year rolling average of enrolment, the special purpose fund is a clear attempt to divert a significant portion of public money toward a performance based model that threatens institutional autonomy. The creation of a so-called special purpose fund would require universities to sign performance based contracts (PBC’s) with the NBHEC. The report does not spell out what would be required of universities in those contracts but based on the overriding themes of the report it is a fair supposition that the preferred performance indicators would likely be tied to commercialization and labour market outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, as mentioned earlier, the proposed $50 million in new funding over three years would barely lift New Brunswick out of its last place among provinces in per-capita funding of post-secondary education, let alone sustain the ambitious policy goals envisioned by the report.
The report is distressingly silent on research funding. Though the commission does acknowledge the poor state of research funding and their lack of matching funding for federal research programs, the only substantial recommendation for research funding is a fund to cover the indirect cost of research. While the indirect cost of research is a pressing issue, it hardly addresses the growing gap in research capacity between New Brunswick and the rest of the country. Put plainly, the need for an invigorated research policy for New Brunswick required more of the commission than to recommend that the government develop a strategic plan.
6. University Governance
The commission’s brief comments on university governance are especially distressing. The tradition in Canada for more than 100 years has been a system of shared governance in which the senior academic body (usually called “the senate”) has responsibility for determining educational policy, and the board of governors has responsibility for financial and administrative matters. The commission seems to prefer a more corporate model in which the senate only reports to the board and only does so through the president. This would set New Brunswick universities at odds with their counterparts across Canada and would take educational decision-making away from those most qualified to make such decisions on behalf of the institution.
7. St. Thomas University
The commission’s comments about St. Thomas are worrisome. Contrary to the commission’s suggestions that St. Thomas has to choose whether it is a public or Catholic institution, its identity is already clear. St. Thomas is a fully public institution, albeit one with a long Catholic tradition. In this sense, it is like most other Catholic universities in Canada, such as St. Francis Xavier, St. Michael’s at the University of Toronto, St. Jerome’s at the University of Waterloo, Campion College at the University of Regina, Kings and Brescia at the University of Western Ontario and St. Thomas More at the University of Saskatchewan. The commission sets out a false dichotomy based on a misunderstanding of the history and mandate of St. Thomas University.
8. Conclusion
The Commission on Post-Secondary Education in New Brunswick began with great promise. There was widespread agreement that New Brunswick’s system of post-secondary education was in need of renewed funding and a comprehensive and renewed vision for access and quality. Regrettably, this report has failed New Brunswickers in all of these key areas. At every turn, the commission has focused on narrow goals that seem driven by private sector management fads rather than a compelling and just vision of what New Brunswick’s system of post-secondary education should be for its citizens.
The report is a step backward in the struggle to expand access for underrepresented groups. The ill conceived idea of opening three new polytechnics at the expense of the current university system will narrow opportunities for New Brunswickers and will exacerbate the funding challenges faced by New Brunswick’s public institutions. The suggestions on governance of the system also offer little promise of an enhanced, well-informed and democratically governed system of post-secondary education. The voices of students and faculty are virtually absent from this report. Finally, and perhaps most distressing, the report exhibits a tin ear throughout for the regional, linguistic, and social mandates that define New Brunswick’s university system. There is little reasoned consideration of how the recommendations would affect these unique challenges. The linguistic duality that defines the province and the perennial problems of unemployment and regional underdevelopment are swept aside for ambitious and hastily conceived changes. The post-secondary education system envisioned in this report would be a step backward for New Brunswick. Everywhere else in Canada, the movement is in the opposite direction – to expand options, with colleges becoming university colleges or polytechnics, and university colleges and polytechnics becoming universities. Strangely, this commission wants to do the opposite – turning the clock back on UNB Saint John, U de M-Shippagan and U de M-Edmundston.
Download the complete document in .pdf format
Top of page