Two Towers of Transformation - OISE...Two Towers of Transformation 6 If the province does indeed...

Two Towers of Transformation: The Compatibility of Policy Goals of Differentiation and Student Mobility

Stacey Young, Pierre Piché and Glen A. Jones

CIHE Report 2017.01

A report to the Ontario Council for Articulation and

Transfer

Two Towers of Transformation 2

Areportby:

OntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation(OISE)UniversityofToronto252BloorSt.West,6thFloorToronto,OntarioM5S1V6Canadawww.oise.utoronto.ca/cihePleasecitethispublicationas:Young,S.J.,Piché,P.G.andJones,G.A.(2017).TheTwoTowersofTransformation:Thecompatibilityofthepolicygoalsofdifferentiationandstudentmobility.Toronto:CentrefortheStudyofCanadianandInternationalHigherEducation,OISE-UniversityofToronto.


Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 41 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 52 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 63 Key concepts defined - Diversity and student mobility .................................................................... 74 Benefits and challenges to students, institutions and government of increased differentiation and student mobility .................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Differentiation ...................................................................................................................... 84.2 Student mobility ................................................................................................................... 94.3 Intersection of benefits ........................................................................................................ 10

5 Ontario in context – A historical review of differentiation and student mobility ............................ 115.1 Differentiation ..................................................................................................................... 115.2 Student mobility .................................................................................................................. 135.3 Strategic mandate agreements ........................................................................................... 17

6 Methodology and literature review ............................................................................................... 187 Review of the literature on institutional behaviour ........................................................................ 198 Policy levers or drivers that impact differentiation and student mobility ....................................... 20

8.1 Differentiation ..................................................................................................................... 208.2 Student mobility .................................................................................................................. 228.3 Intersection of policy levers ................................................................................................ 24

9 Articulation case study analysis .................................................................................................... 259.1 Development and renewal of articulation agreements – A sample process .......................... 259.2 Current pattern of articulation agreements .......................................................................... 27

10 Credit transfer analysis ............................................................................................................ 3011 Other observations from articulation and credit transfer analysis ................................................. 3312 Key observations for future considerations .............................................................................. 33References ........................................................................................................................................... 35


AcknowledgementsWewould liketoacknowledgethecontributionsofMr.KenSnowdon(President,SnowdonandAssociates)andDr.HenryDecock(AssociateVice-President,AcademicPartnerships,SenecaCollege)thatcontributedtotheoverallqualityofthisstudy.WearealsoextremelygratefulforthesupportoftheOntarioCouncilonArticulationandTransferinfundingthisproject.


1 ExecutiveSummary Inthemid-2000s,theOntariogovernmentbeganseekingwaystointroducegreaterfinancialsustainabilityinthepostsecondarysystemthroughtwomajorpolicygoals:greaterinstitutionaldifferentiation,aswellasmechanismsthatwouldenhancestudentmobility–chieflybywayofthetoolsofcredittransferandinstitutionalarticulation.Bothareintendedtodeliverandexpandpostsecondaryeducationinamorecost-effectiveandsustainablemanner.Thispapertracestheevolutionofthosetwo“PolicyTowers,”ultimatelyconsideringhowtheyresidewithinthesamesystem,eithercompetingorcomplementingeachother.

Thispaperbeginsbyexaminingthebenefitsofexpandedopportunitiesforstudentmobilityanddifferentiationwithanattemptatidentifyingthedegreeofintersectionbetweenthetwopolicygoals.Theexaminationrevealedthatbothpoliciesarealignedfromanefficiency/effectivenessandpublicgood/socialjusticeperspective.Bothattempttodrivequality,reducecoststructurestogovernmentandstudents,aswellasincreaseaccesstobaccalaureateeducation.AnexaminationofthepolicyleversanddriversthatimpactdifferentiationandstudentmobilityinOntarioarefirstplacedhistoricallyinordertoprovidecontexttothediscussionandareexaminedbydrawingfromorganizationalandglobalizationstudies.Whiletherearenumberofpolicyleversanddriversthathavebeenusedbytheprovincialgovernmenttoincreasedifferentiationorstudentmobility,somelevershavebeenidentifiedashavingaseriesofcommonelementsbetweenthetwopolicygoals–centralplanningroleofgovernment,financialmechanisms,inter-sectorcooperationandcollaboration,andcompetition.Althoughthispaperarguesthatthetwopolicytowersareindeedhighlycomplementaryandmutuallydependent,differentiationasapolicygoalrequiresarecognitionthatstudentmobilitymustbesupported–thereareavarietyofpolicyleversthathavenotbeenusedeffectively(orusedatall)inthepursuitofeitherone.Thispapermadeuseofasmallnumberofcasestudies—beginningwiththe‘partnerships’fundedbytheOntarioCouncilonArticulationandTransfer,todrawoutcertainkeycharacteristicsthatcanbemappedagainstinstitutionaltypesusedindifferentiatingthehighereducationsystembyclustersofinstitutions.Thestudyalsoexaminedtheextenttowhichvariousinstitutionaltypeshavebeenengagedincredittransferandcomparedandcontrastedthevariousstrategiesusedtoincreasecredittransfersandprovidesupporttotransferstudentsandimproveaccesstoinformation.Itwasnoted,amongotherobservationsthatdependingontheirsize,missionanddemographicfutures,institutionsusedifferenttoolsavailabletothemtosupportthebroaderprovincialpolicygoalofintroducinggreaterstudentmobilityinthesystem.Itappearsfromourdetailedanalysisinthelatterpartofthepaperthatuniversitiesplaceagreateremphasisoncredittransferpoliciesandprotocols,oronthedevelopmentofarticulationagreements.Theimportancetouniversitiesofcredittransferand/orprogramarticulationwithcollegesalsoreflectsthedemographicchallengesfacedbytheseinstitutionsintheregioninwhichtheyarelocated.Theactofengagingotherinstitutionsintheformationofacademicpartnershipsbetweeninstitutionsthatyieldpathwaysandcreatechoiceforstudents(e.g.,forstudentswhobegantheirstudiesinthecollegesectorandwishtopursueuniversity-levelstudies,orviceversa),islabour-intensive,whichinvolvesavarietyofdifferentareaswithintheinstitutions.Therearealsoriskstocreatingsuchpartnerships,risksthatareheightenedinthecurrentcontextwhenfunding,studentaidandotherpoliciesdonotrendersuchpartnershipsexceptionallybeneficialtoeitherparty.


Iftheprovincedoesindeeddecidetoadoptapolicyofcreatinggreaterinstitutionaldifferentiation,whichappropriatelyexecutesthepotentialleversatitsdisposal,thegovernmentmustthencompelinstitutionstotakeonagreatercommitmenttonurturingstudentmobility.ThepaperconcludeswithsomekeyobservationsthatwouldwarrantfutureassessmentwithinthebroaderfundingformulaandOSAPpoliciesandpracticesthattheauthorsfeelarenecessaryforeitherpolicygoaltosucceed.Theseare:• As part of the funding formula review for the university sector, establish an extra formula enrolment

envelope to encourage institutions to increase the number of transfer students (through program partnerships, credit transfer and the creation of articulation agreements).

a. This may be in the form of a fixed per student dollar value that exceeds the BIU value of the program in which the student enrols.

• Going forward, request that institutions include as part of their Strategic Mandate Agreement

submission, a discussion of the institution’s transfer capacity and how it will be achieved through the use of one or both student mobility tools.

• Ensure that the distance component of the Ontario Student Assistance Program is sufficient (in terms of both value and policy intent) to meet the costs of student mobility and choice.

2 Introduction Overthelast10years,theOntariogovernmenthasadoptedanumberofstrategies–somemoreeffectivethanothers–associatedwithachievingtwopublicpolicypillarsthattogethermakeupthebulkofitstransformationagenda.Thisagendaincludesthethemesofachievinggreaterstudentmobilityanddifferentiationamonginstitutions.Bothareintendedtodeliverandexpandpostsecondaryeducationinamorecost-effectiveandsustainablemanner.IntheyearsfollowingtheimplementationoftheRaeReview(post-2006),theprovincialgovernmentbegantoconsidertherelevanceandpolicyimplicationsofdifferentiation.Foritspart,thedifferentiationpolicyframeworkwasadoptedtoreshapeOntario’shighereducationsysteminanefforttoincreasethesystem’soverallsustainability,improveOntario’sglobalcompetitivenessandincreaseaccesstostudentsbybuildingontheexistingstrengthsofitscollegesanduniversities.Thepolicywouldaskinstitutionstoconsiderhowtheydifferintheroletheyplayintheprovinceinthefollowingsixareas:jobs,innovationandeconomicdevelopmentindistinctregions;innovativeteachingandlearning;accesstounderrepresentedstudentgroups;researchandgraduateeducation;breadthofprogramsandcredentialofferings;andextentofinstitutionalcollaborationandstudentmobility(MTCU,2013).Thiswasdonewithintheconfinesofafundingformulathatdidnotitselfincentinstitutionaldifferentiation,butratherprovided“incrementalfundingtiedtoperformanceindicators,mostlymadewithinacontextofrespectinginstitutionalautonomy,rejectingcentralplanningfunctionswhileincreasingcompetition,cooperationandcollaborationamongsthighereducationinstitutions”(Piché,2015b,p.52).Italsoadvancedthisagendathroughwhatwere,andremain,largelypubliccommunicationsvehiclesthatincludedanaccountabilitycomponent–theMulti-YearAccountabilityAgreements(MYAAs)andtheStrategicMandateAgreements(SMAs).Beingunattachedtoanyconsiderableamountofmoney(atleastfornow),thetwoexercises–theMYAAsandtheSMAs–weregovernment’sattemptstoencourageuniversitiesandcollegestodefinethemselvesandreportonarelatedsetofprovince-wideindicatorsofperformance.Workingin


tandem,additionalreportingmechanismswouldrevealinstitutionalweaknesses,whichwould,theoretically,helpcontaintheaspirationsofoverlyambitiousinstitutions.Somehighereducationthinkersregardstudentmobilityanddifferentiationasmutuallydependent:

Differentiationdrivesqualityandstudentchoice.Iftheaspirationsofthestudentchangeduringtheirstudiesorlifetime,adifferentiatedsystemofferstheopportunitytoswitchtoanotherpostsecondaryinstitutionmorealignedwiththeiramendedintentionsandcircumstances.Theopportunityforstudentstomoveamongpostsecondaryinstitutionsiswhyanefficientandrobustcredittransfersystemismorenecessaryinadifferentiatedsystem.Therefore,improvingOntario’scredittransfersystemshouldprecedeoraccompanymoresystemdifferentiation(Weingarten&Deller,2010,pp.10-11).

Thereisnoreasontosuggestanincompatibilitybetweenthegoalsofinstitutionaldifferentiationandstudentmobility.However,theirinter-connectednessorinter-dependenceisnotperhapsforthereasonscitedinthepassageabove.Adifferentiatedsystemdoesnotaffordanopportunitytostudentstodiscoveragreatervarietyofprogramming;rather,differentiationchallengesthearchitectsofthesystemtoenablestudentstomovethroughthesystemwithgreaterease.Theleversthatallowforthatmobilityareexplicitcredittransferpoliciesandafundingformulathatfacilitatestheformationofacademicpartnershipsthroughthecreationofarticulationagreementsandadequatestudentaidfunding.Forthepurposesofthispaper,though,theauthorswillfocusonthecurrentpatternofarticulationagreementsandtransferactivityandhowthesehistoricalpatternsmayintersectwithadifferentiatedPSEsystem.Wewillalsoanalyzetheprovince’simplementationofadifferentiationpolicy,afoundationfordecisionmakingbytheprovince,throughthenegotiationofinstitutionalmandateagreementsandbyamendmenttothefundingformulatofocusoninstitutionalstrengths,asabackdroptoitsaspirationstobuildamoreexpansivesystemofcredittransferandinstitutionalarticulation.Thestudywillconcludebyprovidingasetofrecommendationsthatwillinformthepracticalmergingofthesetwopolicygoals.

3 Keyconceptsdefined-Diversityandstudentmobility Institutionaldiversity(varietyofinstitutionswithinasystemorsectorandthedispersionofinstitutionsacrosstypes,seeHuisman,1998)isbetterunderstoodwhenthespecificinstitutionalcharacteristicunderexaminationisclearlyidentified.Anumberofrecentstudies(Clark,Moran,Skolnik,&Trick,2009;Weingarten&Deller,2010;Clark,Trick&VanLoon,2011,Piché,2015a)andMTCU’s(2013)policyframeworkexaminedandcalledforinstitutionstobedifferentiatedoveramultitudeofdimensions(size,institutionaltype,degreelevels,studentdemographics,prestige,geographiclocation)withanoverarchingemphasisonsystemicdiversity(differencesinthetypeofinstitution,sizeofinstitutionandcontrolwithinapostsecondarysystem,Birnbaum,1983)andprogrammaticdiversity(differencesindegreelevel,missionandprogramemphasis,Birnbaum,1983).Whiletheliteratureoftendistinguishesbetweendiversity,diversification(processinwhichthelevelofdiversityincreases,seeHuisman,1998)anddifferentiation(processinwhichnewentitiesemergeinasystemorsector,seeHuisman,1998)thisstudywillusetheterms“institutionaldiversity”and“differentiation”torefertodifferencesbetweenoramongpostsecondaryinstitutionswithrespecttospecificinstitutionalcharacteristics”(Skolnik,2013,paragraph3).


TheconceptofstudentmobilityinOntarioismoststronglyassociatedwiththedualpoliciesofcredittransferandinstitutionalarticulation.Simplyput,credittransferconsiderstheequivalencyofcoursecreditsacrossinstitutionsthatareofhighaffinity(e.g.,comparingthelearningoutcomesofEconomics101atUniversityXversusthe‘same’courseatUniversityY,orevenCollegeB).Institutionalarticulationagreementsattheprogramlevel,ontheotherhand,facilitatethe“block”recognitionofcreditswhenastudentmovesfrominstitutionAtoinstitutionB(orcredentialAtocredentialb).Insodoing,areceivinginstitutiongrantsadvancedstandingtothestudent,inanoverallefforttoeliminateunnecessaryduplicativelearning.AccordingtotheAustralianQualificationsFramework(AQF)glossaryofterminology,credittransferandcreditaredefinedasthefollowing:

Credittransferisaprocessthatprovidesstudentswithagreedandconsistentcreditoutcomesforcomponentsofaqualificationbasedonidentifiedequivalenceincontentandlearningoutcomesbetweenmatchedqualifications(AQF,2013-a)Creditisthevalueassignedfortherecognitionofequivalenceincontentandlearningoutcomesbetweendifferenttypesoflearningand/orqualifications.Creditreducestheamountoflearningrequiredtoachieveaqualificationandmaybethroughcredittransfer,articulation,recognitionofpriorlearningoradvancedstanding(AQF,2013-b).

Thesamesourceoffersthefollowingdefinitionofarticulation:

Articulationarrangementsenablestudentstoprogressfromacompletedqualificationtoanotherwithadmissionand/orcreditinadefinedqualificationpathway(AQF,2013-c).

Othertermsthatcomplicatethelanguageofstudentmobilityinclude“pathways”and“academicpartnerships.”Inthisstudy,thelattertermrefersbroadlytothevarietyofwaysinwhichinstitutionscancombinetheirresources(space,facultymembers)tooffersharedprogramming,andwhichincludesarticulationagreements.Pathwayshasbecomeafrustratinglyubiquitoustermthat,intheOntariocontext,referssomesortoftransparentwaystudentsmaynavigateawayfromoneinstitutiontotheother,inamannerthatfacilitatesentryintothereceivinginstitution.Pathwaysdonotnecessarilyrestuponanarticulationagreement,andofteninvolveonlytwoinstitutions.Increasingly,thecurrencythatallowsforequivalencytobeestablishedislearningoutcomes(LOs).Learningoutcomesmakeitpossibletoassessthedegreetowhichduplicationinlearningcanbeeliminated.Theoretically,then,whenequivalencyisestablishedonthecourselevelortheprogramlevel,moreefficientpathwaysbetweenprogramsandcredentialscanbeestablished.

4 Benefitsandchallengestostudents,institutionsandgovernmentofincreaseddifferentiationandstudentmobility4.1 Differentiation Overtheyears,anumberofstudieshavecitedargumentsinfavorofadiversifiedhighereducationsystem.“Diversityhasbeenidentifiedinthehighereducationliteratureasoneofthemajorfactorsassociatedwiththepositiveperformanceofhighereducationsystems”(vanVught,2008,p.154).Birnbaum(1983)wasamongtheearliesttoidentifyitsvaluetomeettheneedsofadiversifiedstudentbody(studentscanbe


bettermatchedtotheinstitutiontypethattrulymeetstheirlearningstylesandaspirations),differentlabourmarkets,andtomeettheneedsofdifferentinterestgroups.Morespecifically,adiversehighereducationsystemismoreefficientandeffectiveforbothgovernmentandinstitutionsinachievingtheirpurposesandfunctions,asitencouragestheachievementofqualityoutcomeswhilelesseningmissiondrift(clarityaroundinstitutionalmissionscombinedwithgovernmentregulationscanpreventmissiondrift).Adiversesystemalsofacilitatestargetedandstrategicfundingallocations(especiallyintimesofeconomicrestraint)tospecializedinstitutionstomeetthespecificneedsoffundingagencies(Singh,2008).Fromapublicgood/socialjusticeperspective,Singh’s(2008)reviewoftheliteratureidentifiedthatadiversesystemhasmoredemonstrablelinesofaccountability,andthatdiversityisa

moreeffectivewaytoaddressthemultiplesocialpurposesofhighereducation;wideningofaccesstohighereducationfornon-traditionalstudentsthatbetteraddressestheirvariedneeds…faireraccessthroughdifferentialfeestructuresatdifferentinstitutions…[and]betterinformedchoicesbyprospectivestudents[wheninstitutionsareclearlyclassified],p.248.

Thereare,however,adverse–andperhapsunintended–consequencestoadifferentiatedsystem.Geographicaccessibilitycouldeliminatethebenefitsofadiversehighereducationsystemwhenthedistancesbetweenmajorurbancentersarelargeandthecostoftransportationishigh,therebylimitingeducationalopportunitiesforstudentstoafewtypesofinstitutions(Jones,1996).TheseconcernswerealsoexpressedbytheCouncilofOntarioUniversitiesastheyseekadiversesectorthatstillprovidesawidearrayofprogramsacrosstheprovince.“Thegreaterthediversityofthesystem,themoredifferenceitmakeswhichinstitutionanindividualattendsinregardtothequalityoftheeducationreceivedandfutureoptionsforsubsequenteducationandemployment”(Skolnik,1986,p.5).Specializedinstitutionswouldnothavethebreadthofdisciplinesandactivitiesfoundinacomprehensiveuniversity,whichwouldtherebylimittherangeofpotentialinteractionsbetweendifferenttypesofstudentsanddifferenttypesoffaculty(Skolnik,1986).

4.2 Studentmobility TheoverallpurposeofbothcredittransferpoliciesandtheformationofacademicpartnershipsintheformofarticulationagreementsaretoexpandstudentchoiceandenhancetheopportunityforstudentstomoveamongstPSEinstitutions.Thesetoolshelptoensurethatstudentsareacademicallypreparedtosucceedintheirnewprogrammeofstudy(throughtheseformalagreements),andreducethecostsofpostsecondaryeducationtostudentsbyeliminatingtheneedtoduplicatelearning(seeYoung,Roderick&DiPietro,2016).Anefficientstudentmobilityframeworkensuresthatstudentsareabletoachievetheirmaximumpotentialinlearning,andcan“completetheirstudiesinatimelymanner…[andincreases]astudent’sabilitytostudyanything,anywhere,atanytime”(Junor&Usher,2008,p.20).Itensuresfairandappropriaterecognitionoftheirpaststudiesandprovidesclearinformationabouttransferprocessesandpathwayswithcreditrecognitionrequirementsthatarecomprehensibletostudents.Theabsenceofefficientcredittransfercreatesabarriertostudentstopursuefurtherpostsecondaryeducation.“Eventhoughcredittransferabilitymaynotbethemostimportantbarriertomobility,itisperhapsthemostintractableonesimplybecauseofthenumberofpartnerswhichneedtobemobilizedinorderforasolutiontobefound”(Junor&Usher,2008,p.19).Furthermore,anacademiccredentialisalmostneverissuedwithoutthestudentaccumulatingessentialcredits(pre-requisitesandminimumgraderequirements)thatdemonstrateanappropriatelevelofmasteryinanacademicprogramofstudy,inordertoensurethatallgraduatesfromaninstitution“possessthesamecoreknowledgeandcompetencies”(Junor&


Usher,2008,p.22).Whiletheserequirementsensureminimumlevelsofacademicqualityaremetbeforeacredentialisissuedbyaninstitution,theymayalsoleadtoduplicativelearning.Ithasbeenwidelyacceptedthat,inmostjurisdictions,thecosttogovernmentandstudentsofobtainingabaccalaureatedegreebyattendingtwoyearsatacollegefollowedbytwoyearsatauniversity,islowerthanthecostofattendingafour-yearprogramatauniversity,assumingthatthestudentdoesnotneedtotakeextracoursestomakeupforcoursesnottakenatcollege(Trick,2013).Inaddition,thecostincurredbyuniversitiesonadmission,orientation,andacademicadvisingfortransferstudentswasnotedtobehigherthanthosefordirect-entrystudents.Thecostper-studentofrecruitingtransferstudentswaslowerthanfordirect-entrystudentsastherearealimitednumberofchannelsavailableforrecruitingtransferstudentsascomparedtodirect-entrystudents(Youngetal,2016;Trick,2016).However,itisoftenassumedthatthethreemainplayerswhodirectlyfundthepostsecondaryeducationsystem–students,governmentandinstitutions–willallreapsubstantialcostsavingsbyrationingthesystem’sresourcesandleveragingfixedcoststothebenefitofallparties’maximumadvantage(seelatestexerciseinassessingthepotentialforcostssavingsbySnowdonandBrady,2015),suchassumptionshavenotbeenrigorouslyinterrogated.Furthermore,ithasbeenpointedoutrepeatedlybyinstitutionsandscholars(notably,Skolnik,2005),thatthereexistsnorealstructuralfinancialincentiveforinstitutionstoactivelypursuetransferstudentsandincuradditionalcosts(developingarticulationarrangementandrelatedinfrastructureforCAATtransferstudents)inaperiodofenrolmentgrowth,withtheexceptionthatinstitutionsfacingdecliningenrolmentmaytheoreticallystemthesedeclinesthroughthedevelopmentoftransferpoliciesandagreements.Skolnik(2005)makesthecasethatincreasedstudentmobilitycouldbeachievedifOntariouniversitieswouldbemoredifferentiatedbeyondthecurrentresearch-intensiveuniversities,haveopenaccess,flexibleadmissionpoliciesandwouldvaluestudentmobilitybetweeninstitutions.Hearguesthatinstitutionswithdegree-grantingauthorityincludesthoseinstitutionsthatprovidetraditionalpolytechniceducation,makingthemmoresimilartoCAATSthantouniversities(ibid).

4.3 Intersectionofbenefits Thebenefitsofstudentmobilityandahighlydifferentiatedsystemarealignedfromanefficiency/effectivenessperspective.Bothattempttodrivequalitythroughspecializationorbyallowingsomeinstitutionstocompeteglobally(differentiatedsystem)orthroughincreasedcollaborationbetweensectors(studentmobility).Thereisalsoareductionincoststructuresforgovernmentastargetedandstrategicapproachescanbedevelopedtosupportmorespecializedinstitutions(differentiatedsystem)andareductioninpostsecondaryspendingoccurswhenastudentattendspartoftheirbaccalaureateeducationatacollegeratherthanenteringdirectlyintouniversity(studentmobility).Thebenefitsofexpandedstudentmobilityandahighlydifferentiatedsystemarealsoalignedfromapublicgood/socialjusticeperspective.Bothattempttoincreaseaccesstobaccalaureateeducationeitherbycreatingdifferenttypesofinstitutionsbeyondthetraditionalresearchuniversitythatwillincreaseaccesstonon-traditionalstudents(differentiatedsystem)orbyallowingstudentstostudyclosertotheirfamilyhome(studentmobility).Thereisalsoareductionincoststructuresforstudentswiththecreationofdifferentiatedfeestructures(differentiatedsystem)andtheeliminationofduplicativelearning(studentmobility).


5 Ontarioincontext–AhistoricalreviewofdifferentiationandstudentmobilityOntariohighereducationiscomposedofuniversitiesthatwerecreatedwithsimilarmissions(teaching,researchandcommunityservice)byseparateactsoftheprovinciallegislaturewiththeauthoritytograntdegrees.Collegeswereestablishedunderoneactthatofferstechnical,non-degree,community-responsiveandvocationalprogramming,and,since2000,toofferappliedbaccalaureatedegrees.Theprovincehasfewrestrictionsonthenon-degreeprivatecareercollegessectorandallowsmarketforcestomeetthedemandforvocationallydrivenprogramming.

5.1 Differentiation ItisacknowledgedthatOntariouniversitiesaresomewhatdifferentiatedandtheProvinceseekstoincreasetheextentofdiversityinitshighereducationsystem.Ontariouniversitiesarecurrentlydifferentiatedonseveraldimensions:bysize(e.g.TheUniversityofTorontohasover77,000studentsin2014-15ascomparedtoAlgoma’salmost1,200students),byprogramofferings(e.g.notalluniversitiesoffernursingprogramsandnotallofferprofessionalprogramslikemedicine,dentistryandpharmacy),bymission(theextenttowhichaninstitutionfocusesonresearch,teachingandcommunityservice),bythecompositionoftheirstudentbody(e.g.proportionofgraduateandundergraduatestudentsortheextentofIndigenous,FirstGeneration,Francophoneandstudentswithdisabilities),andinthewayuniversitiesdelivertheircourseofferings(e.g.traditionallecture,experientiallearning,on-line,orcooperativeeducation).TheOntariocollegesectorisalsodifferentiatedbytheirnatureastheyofferprogramsthatspecificallyservetheiruniquelocalcommunitiesandoffervocationalcertificates(includinggraduatecertificates),diplomas,whilehalfofthecollegesofferbaccalaureatedegrees,allinsupportoftheirlocaleconomies.Thesectorisalsodifferentiatedbyotherdimensions:bysize(Humberhasover18,000fundedstudentsin2011-12ascomparedtoBoréal’s1,366students),byappliedfundedresearchactivity,arelativelynewandminoractivityforcolleges(Hicks,Weingarten,JonkerandLiu,2013).However,verylittleattentionhasbeengiventotheextentofdiversityinOntario’scollegesectorastheseinstitutions,bytheirveryownnature,immediatelycontributedtoincreasingthesystem’ssystemicandprogrammaticdiversitywhentheywereoriginallycreated(Skolnik,2013).WhilethedebateaboutthelevelofdiversityinOntario’shighereducationsystemhasrecentlyintensifiedwiththegovernment’sadoptionofadifferentiationframework(seeMTCU,2013),Skolnik(2013)tracesthedebateaboutinstitutionaldiversitytothesecondquarterofthenineteenthcenturywherethediscussionfocusedarounddifferentiatedfundingforpostsecondaryinstitutionsdependingontheirdenominationalaffiliation.Priortothe2004,Ontariopostsecondaryeducationsystemreview,structuralhighereducationchangesweresuggestedbynumerouscommissions(CommissiontoStudytheDevelopmentofGraduateProgrammesinOntario(knownastheSpinksCommission,1966),TheReportoftheCommitteeontheFutureRoleofUniversitiesinOntario(knownastheFisherCommitteeReport,1981),CommissionontheFutureDevelopmentoftheUniversitiesofOntario(knownastheBoveyCommission,1984)),andtheAdvisoryPanelonFutureDirectionsforPostsecondaryEducation(Excellence,Accessibility,Responsibility,1996)thatfocusedmainlyonincreasingtheextentofsystemicandprogrammaticdiversityintheuniversitysectorinanefforttoincreasethelevelsofteachingandresearchquality,andaccessibilitytomeetthedemandsforhighereducationinacosteffectivemannerwhilerespectinginstitutionalautonomy.“Policyrecommendations


historicallyrevolvedaroundfundinglevelsandprogramrationalization(mixofprograms)toreduceduplication,allwithinacontextofrespectinginstitutionalautonomy,rejectingcentralplanningfunctionswhileincreasingcompetition,andenhancingcooperationandcollaborationamongstpostsecondaryinstitutions”(PichéandJones,2016,p.3).Morerecently,formerOntariopremierBobRaeundertookareviewofthepublicpostsecondaryeducationsystemwithafocusonincreasingaccesstopostsecondaryeducation,improvingqualityandaccountabilitycombinedwithexaminingthedesignandstructureofthecurrentsystem.Raeencouragedthepromotionofinstitutionaldiversityasameansofreducingduplication“throughthetuitionframework,accountabilityarrangementsandthedesignoftheprovince’sfundingformula”(Rae,2005,p.41).Healsorecognizedthatasinstitutionsbecomemorespecialized,studentsrequireclearerpathwaysandenhancedcredittransferarrangements.Severalstudieshavesuggestedstructuralrecommendationsthroughincreasedinstitutionaldifferentiation.JonesandSkolnik(2009)calledforincreaseddifferentiationthroughthecreationofanundergraduateteaching-focusedsector(mainlylocatedintheGTAduetothedemandforbaccalaureateeducationinthatregion)thatwoulddifferfromcollegesandexistinguniversitieswhileenhancingpathwaysforcollegestudentstoattainabaccalaureatedegreeandpossiblyattendgraduateschooliftheysochoose.Thisstudyalsorecommendedthecreationofaspecializedopenuniversity,andanincreasedroleforcollegesinprovidingbaccalaureateeducationandmoreefficienttransfersystemforuniversityartsandsciencesubjects.TheMinistryofTrainingCollegesandUniversitiesrequestedadvicefromtheHigherEducationQualityCouncilofOntario(HEQCO)thatledtothedevelopmentofaroadmaptoincreasediversityinOntario’spostsecondaryeducationsystemduringaperiodoffiscalrestraint.WeingartenandDeller(2010)acknowledgedthattheuniversitysectoriscurrentlydifferentiatedbyprogrammesthatserveavarietyofregionsbutnotedthatdifferentiationcanonlybeachievedifteaching,researchandcommunityservicearevaluedequallybygovernment.Differentiationcanbestbeachievedthroughcomprehensiveagreementsbetweengovernmentandinstitutionsthatlayoutinstitutionalpriorities,goalsandareasoffuturegrowth.Itwasalsorecommendedthatincentivefundingobtainedthroughcompetitionthatistiedtodesiredgovernmentoutcomesbeusedasthekeylevertoenabledifferentiation.Overtheyears,twodifferentapproacheshavebeensuggestedintheliteraturetoincreaseinstitutionaldiversityinOntario’suniversitysector.

Thefirstistoincreasediversitythroughthecreationofnewinstitutionaltypes(teaching-focuseduniversities,anopenuniversity)orexpandtheroleofexistinginstitutions(suchascolleges)therebyincreasingaccesswhilealsocontributingtogreaterefficienciesintheprovisionofdegreeprograms…Thesecondapproach,whichnowdominatestheOntariopolicydebateistoincreasediversitywithintheexistingarrayofinstitutionsthroughincentivesandmandateagreementsdesignedtostimulatedifferentiation(PichéandJones,2016,p.13).

Whiletheserecommendationsmainlyfocusedontheprovincialgovernmentpolicyenvironment,fromafederalperspective,OntariouniversitiesreceivedsignificantresearchfundingmainlythroughthenationalgrantingcouncilsandacademicsalarysupportthroughtheCanadaResearchChairsProgram.Researchfundingisprovidedthroughapeerreviewbased,competitiveprocessanddifferentiatesuniversitiesbytheextentoftheirresearchintensity.Thisresearchfundingmechanismsupports“existingresearchstrengthsandencourageddiversificationintheuniversitysectorinOntario”(Piché,2015b,p.59).Whilethesalarysupportfundingismainlydistributedbasedonaninstitution’sabilitytoattractnationalgrantingcouncilfunding,itensuresthatalluniversitiesreceivefundingforatleastonechair,therebyencouragingalluniversitiestobemoreresearchintensive(Piché,2015b).


5.2 Studentmobility Thesisterinitiativesofarticulationandcredittransferemphasizetheeliminationoftheneedforduplicativelearningthroughtheencouragementofinstitutionstodeploymorerigorandtransparencytotheprocessofrecognizingpriorformallearningthroughtheuseandconsiderationoflearningoutcomes,bothatthecourseandprogramlevels.

Theemphasisontheword“formal”hereisintendedtodrawattentiontothesimultaneousriseandencouragementoftheadoptionofadditionalmechanismsthatrecognizepriorlearningthattakesplaceinmoreinformalsettings.PriorLearningandAssessmentRecognition,orPLAR,isdefinedasaprocessconstitutinga“combinationofdemonstrations,challenges,andthepresentationofthepersonalportfolio,allowinglearningoutcomestobetranslatedintoacademiccredit”(Thomas,2001,p.9).ThereasonfornotingthisconcurrentriseandinterestinwideningtheuseofPLAR,ontheonehand,andasystemofcredittransferandarticulationagreementsontheother,isthattheyallrestupontheformaldevelopmentofprocessesandmechanismsdesignedtoestablishthevalueandequivalencyofacquiredlearningoutcomesatthecourseandprogramlevels.AlthoughThomas,CollinsandPlett(2002)havecharacterizedPLARasaprocessdesignedtotransformprivateknowledgeintosomethingthatispubliclyrecognized,itisalsopremisedonaself-consciousandintentionalconsiderationofwhathasbeenlearnedinanother,sometimesverydifferentlearningcontext.Alltheseexercisesofestablishingequivalencydrawheavilyonthecurrencyoflearningoutcomes–inordertoreduceduplicationinlearningandthecostsinvolvedthereof–thecoststostudents,institutionsandgovernment.Today,articulationandtransferarealsoregardedastoolstoprovideamechanismofgreatercollaborationandcooperationbetweenandamonguniversitiesandcolleges,particularlyinacontextofresourcecontainment(WeingartenandDeller,2010).Ontarioisamongahandfulofprovincesinwhichcollegesectorsweredesignedwiththeexpressintentionofprovidinganalternativeeducationtouniversity(Lang,2009;Skolnik,2005).However,thatisnotthecaseforallCanadianprovinces.ThosesuchasAlberta,BritishColumbia,andQuebec,featureaformallymandatedtransferrolethatexplicitlypreparesthecollegegraduateforentryintouniversity-levelstudy(Dennison&Gallagher,1986;Gallagher&Dennison,1995).Curriculumdevelopmentandprogramdesign,therefore,aredrivenlargelywiththeuniversitycurriculuminmind,andattempttopreparethegraduateforfutureuniversitystudy.However,aswillbeexploredbelowinthispaper,Ontario–andnotably,Manitoba–hasengagedinafairamountofworkinordertomakethetransitiontodegreelevelstudypossibleaftersuccessfulcompletionofacollege-levelcredential(Skolnik,2004).AsdocumentedextensivelybyKirby(2007),thefirstinter-institutionalcollaborativeprogramswerecreatedfornursingeducation,inpartaresultofthe1993callissuedbytheOntarioNursesAssociation(ONA)thatallofitsnursepractitionersholdbaccalaureatedegreesbytheyear2000(ONA,2016).InresponsetotheNDP’sinterestinsupportingtheresurgenceoftheNursingPractitionercredential,ONAcalleduponthegovernmenttosupporttheimprovementandexpansionofthetransferabilityofacademiccredits,“whileensuringtheappropriateattainmentofcollegediplomasanduniversitydegrees”(ONA,2016).Thearticulationmodelofcollege-universitynursingeducationwasregardedbynursesthemselvesasthemostappropriatewaytheprofessioncoulddealwiththeupgradingrequiredbymanyofitsmembers,inacost-effectivewaythatminimizedduplicationinlearning.

Withthetransitionfromdiplomaentry-leveltodegreeentry-leveleducationforRegisteredNurses(RNs),acollaborativeprogrammodelthatbringstogetherindependentcollegeanduniversity


programshasbeenwidelyadoptedasapreferredmodelforbaccalaureatenursingprogramsacrossCanada(Kirby,2008,p.2).

Intermsofarticulationandtransferatlarge,thefirstofthemostambitiouscallsforenhancedopportunitiesforstudentmobilityintheprovincewasissuedin1990,inthedocument“Vision2000”,inwhichtheauthor,CharlesPascal,restatedwhatheconsideredthegreatestflawofthePSEsystemintheprovince:thatitwascreatedwiththeexplicitintentionofprovidingafundamentallydifferenttypeofeducationalexperience;andthatsuchintentionalityhadcreatedaprofoundchallengetostudentmovementbetweenandamongthetwoinstitutiontypes.SomehavesuggestedthatCAATsystemfounderWilliamDavisleftopenthepossibilityofstudentmovementfromcollegetouniversity,asthepolicynotesaccompanyingthecreationofthecollegesectorstatedthat“noableandqualifiedstudentshouldbepreventedfromgoingonfromaCollegeofAppliedArtsandTechnologytoauniversity”(Davis,1967,pp.13-14).However,another,equallyplausibleinterpretationisthatthegovernmentwassimplydrawingattentiontothelackofintentionbehindthe“streaming”effectthatthestructureofthesystemwouldhave,orthatcollegestudentsweresimplyinanywayprohibitedfromapplyingtouniversity.Collegeswereintendedtoprovideanalternate,moreefficientandcost-effectiveoptionforworking-classOntarians.Nonetheless,Vision2000calledforanexpansionandincreaseinthenumberofopportunitiesforstudentstomovewithgreatereasebetweenandamongprovincialPSEinstitutions,particularlythroughthemechanismofcredittransfer(forfullertreatmentsofpolicyreviews,consultDennison,1995;andFisher,Rubenson,Shanahan&Trottier,2014).TwocomponentsofVision2000thatwereadoptedbygovernmentthathadrelevancetothedevelopmentofarticulationandcredittransferinOntariowere:TheestablishmentoftheCollegeStandardsandAccreditationCouncil(CSAC)andthedevelopmentofaguidedevotedtoassistingcollegescraftandadopttheirownpriorlearningandassessmentmechanisms,tobeoperatedfullyindependentlyateachcollege(Smith,1996).LikeVision2000,Pitman‘s(1993)reporttitled“NoDeadEnds:OntarioTaskForceonAdvancedTraining”(alsoknownasthePitmanReport),addressedwhatwashabituallyregardedasthemajordesignflawofOntario’ssystem,throughamoreadvancedandsystematicmechanismofcreditrecognition.Inthenextfewyears,theprovincesagreed,throughtheCouncilofMinistersofEducation(CMEC),toissueaPan-CanadianProtocolonthetransferabilityofcredits,withaviewtoincreasinginter-provincialstudentmobility(1995).Althoughthespiritoftheagreementwaswellintentioned,theco-ordinationof10distinctprovincialsystemsofhighereducationtojoinforcestoimprovestudentmobilitywasmorerelevantasastatementofinterprovincialgoodwillratherthanasetofmarchingorderstoregionalbureaucracies.Inotherwords,thesetofprincipleswasrootedinasenseofaspirationratherthanshortormedium-termactionplans.By1994,theprovincialgovernmenthadshifteditsfocussomewhat,withattentionsquarelysituatedontheinstitutionsandtheirprocesses,ratherthanonindividualcourseshavingsomebasictransferablequalities.Theemphasiswasalsoontheperceivedneedforcollegesanduniversitiestoworktogethertoachievebothalevelofcostsavingsaswellasservewhatwasperceivedasagrowingdemandonthepartofstudents–andperhapsemployers–foraskillsetthatwasbestachievedthroughaprogramofstudythatcombinedthetechnicalskillsofacollegeeducationandthetheoreticalskillsofuniversitytraining.Thatsameyear,thegovernmentoptedtosupportpathwaydevelopmentthroughavoluntarybodyofcollegesanduniversitiescalledtheCollege-UniversityConsortiumCouncil(CUCC).Furtherpressureonimprovingstudentmobilityemergedfromtherecommendationsofapanelconvenedin1995onthefutureofpostsecondaryeducationundertherecentlyelectedProgressiveConservativegovernmentofMikeHarris.Althoughthereportclearlyhadtermsassignedtoitalongthelinesofhowbestthesystemcoulddelivermoreresultswithfewerresources(thethemeofmostgovernmentpolicyreports


throughoutthe1990s),thepanelcalledforafewfairlydramaticchangestothewayinwhichcollegesanduniversitieswerefinancedduringthatdecade.Itwaswithinthatenvironment–thederegulationoftuitionfees,thecutstostudentaidandoperatingsupportofupto20percent–thatchangeswereneededtofacilitatethemovementandmobilityofstudentsbetweenthecollegeanduniversitysectors(Young,2001).Inthewordsofthepanel,withoutsomesignificantchangestothewaythesystemwasresourced,collegesanduniversitieswouldnotbeabletodeliverthetypesofprogrammingexpectedofthembystudents,governmentandemployersalike.Specifically,thepanelnotedthe“needtoremoveunnecessarybarrierstostudentswishingtotransferamong[collegesanduniversities]andalsotothesharingofservicesandfacilities”(MTCU,1996).AspartofactingconcretelyonsomeoftherecommendationsoftheSmithReport,thegovernmentalsofundedthedevelopmentanddistributionofakeycommunicationpiece–forthebenefitofstudentsandinstitutions–intheformofatransferguideavailableforstudents.Itcopiedinbothformandfunctionsimilarcommunicationvehiclesusedinotherjurisdictionswithhighlydevelopedtransferandarticulationregimes;namely,BritishColumbiaandAlberta.Littlehappenedonthisparticularpolicyfrontintheyearsfrom1996to2003,althoughCUCCestablishedanumberofinitiativesinthesector,manyofwhichinvolvedtwoorthreeinstitutionalpartners.Thetotalnumberofprojectswasimpressive,assuchactivitywasvoluntary,andhadnotyetemergedassuchahighlyemphasizedinstitutionalfocus.However,muchoftheactivitywasnotcoordinatedatthesystemlevelandknowledgetransferwasoneofthedownfallsofthevoluntarynatureofmembershipandinvolvementwiththeCUCCandtheactivityitsupported.Itdid,however,leadtoanumberofinnovativeexperimentswitharticulationarrangements,aswellassharedprogramming,andplayedakeyroleinthechallengesfacingthenursingprofession,asoutlinedabove.Intermsofcredittransferandarticulation,governmentalsofocusedincreasingattentiononthecollegesector,whereitcouldmakeitsmarkmoreeffectively,givenitsgreatroleinmanagingandgoverningthatsector.Itsmanagementroleextendedbeyondfundingandpolicytoitshands-onroleinregulatingcurriculum,theresultbeingthatcollege-basedprogrammingwasfarmoresimilarfrominstitutiontoinstitutionduetoexternalforcesonprogramofferingsandcontent.TheresultwasthecreationofaTransferandMobilityProtocolforCollege-to-Collegetransferin2003.Throughthemid-2000s,furthermovementtookplace,asformerPremierBobRaecalledforgreaterprogressrelatedtofacilitatingstudentmobility;provincesformedanationalumbrellagroup–thePanCanadianConsortiumonAdmissionsandTransfer.Itwasseenasavehiclefororganizingnationalactivities,goalsandstatementsofanaspirationaltone;however,sinceitsmembersexhibitedsuchvariationinthenatureandstructureoftheirpostsecondarysystems,itlackstheformalauthoritytoadvancetheagendatoodramatically.Credittransferandarticulation,includingthebroadgoalof“studentmobility,”tooksomewhatofabackseattothetrinityof“access,quality,andaccountability”thatcharacterizedtheReachingHigherAgenda.Thiswaspartlyduetothefactthatthisagendawasaboutspending,notaboutseekingadministrativeandotherefficiencies.However,oncethespendingassociatedwiththeReachingHigheragendahadsubsided,governmentturnedtowardasecondwaveofpolicygoals,arguablymoremotivatedbyrealizedsystemefficienciesandlong-termsustainability,aswellasaddressingsomeofperceivedsystemicflaws.Thisincludedfurtheringtheprogressondifferentiation,accountability(throughtheMulti-YearAccountabilityAgreementrenewalprocess),andcredittransferandarticulation,amongothers.Inordertospeeduptheprocessimprovingstudentmobility,theMinistryestablishedasuccessorbodytotheCollege-UniversityConsortiumCouncil(CUCC).Inthefollowingyear(2009),theCreditTransferSteering


Committeewascreated,madeupofsectorrepresentatives,toadvisegovernmentonhowcredittransferandarticulationshouldandcouldbefacilitated,aswellasanadditionalcommittee(TechnicalWorkingGroup)torecommendhowsuccesswouldbereflectedinanappropriatesetofperformanceindicators.ThelatterbodyhelpedinformtheCreditTransferAccountabilityFramework.Severalyearsafterthegovernmentsoughtinternalapprovaltoallocatefundingtocreateasuccessorbodythatwouldfurthersupportstudentmobility,itcreatedtheOntarioCouncilonArticulationandTransfer(ONCAT).Thearm’slengthagencywasestablishedtoenhancestudentpathwaysandreducebarriersforstudentslookingtotransferamongOntario’s44publiclyfundedpostsecondaryinstitutions.Itwas“createdasamember-drivenorganizationtoworkwithallpubliclyfundedcollegesanduniversitiestoenablethesystemofcredittransfertodevelopasrapidlyaspossible,whilealsorespectinginstitutionalautonomy”(ONCAT,2013,p.3).

Ontariowillhaveacomprehensive,transparentandconsistentlyappliedcredittransfersystemthatwillimprovestudentpathwaysandmobility,supportstudentsuccessandmakeOntarioapostsecondaryeducationdestinationofchoice.Thecredittransfersystemwillassistqualifiedstudentsmovebetweenpostsecondaryinstitutionsandprogramswithoutrepeatingpriorandrelevantlearning(MTCU,2011).

Ina2013policypaper,ONCATstateditspurposewastohelpexpandstudentmobilityintheprovinceofOntariobynurturingthecreationofnewpathways;workwithinstitutionstocreateclearerguidelinesconcerningtheirpoliciesandpractices(“communications”);andadviseonthedevelopmentofmechanismsthatwouldhelpgeneratebetterdataonthetrackingandmovementofstudentsthroughtheprovincialpostsecondarysystem.InsystemslikeOntariowherearticulationagreementsandotherformsofpartnershiptendtoconnectfairlyautonomousinstitutions,theprocessesinvolvedandtheincentivesofferedareverydifferentthantheyareinthoseprovinceswherecooperationishighandarticulationandtransferpracticesarefurtheralong.Partofwhatmakestheexpectationsofco-operativebehaviourbygovernmentsisthatgovernmentitselfsometimesrelayscontradictorymessagestoinstitutions.Governmentcreatesbothpolicyandoperationalleversdesignedtoinducecooperation(specialfundingforarticulationagreements)andothersdesignedtosupportcompetitivebehaviours(matchingprogramsinwhichinstitutionscompete,often,fortheallocationofprivatefunds)(Young,2002).Giventhischallengingenvironment,BoggsandTrickdeployauniquelenstothechallengesfacedbyOntarioinstitutionswhenexpectedtoforgeco-operativerelationshipswithoneanotherwithinthisfundingandpolicycontext,andbegintheirstudywiththefollowingobservation:“Studiesshowthatbetween50and70percentofjointventuresdonotsucceed”(Park&Russo,1996;ascitedinBoggs&Trick,2009).ThefollowingarethekeyfactorsanddynamicsdrawnfromtheworkofBoggsandTrick(2009)thatarepartoftheprospectivepartners’processofdeterminingwhetherornotpartnershipisprudent,beneficialorcountertotheinterestsofanorganization.Theyareextremelyrelevanttothespecterofanarticulationagreement:

• Uncertainty and immeasurability – this notion underlies the doubts and fears that either or both parties feel about the quality of the other’s contribution to the partnership.

• Third party effects – the impact upon relationships with other organizations as a consequence of forming a cooperative arrangement (government, funding agencies, competitors, etc.).


• Disincentives to share gains (and risk!) – the potential to overstate the costs or share/burden of the partnership so that the contributions by the two partnership are inaccurately reported;

• Enforcement difficulties – finding the appropriate dispute mechanisms in the event of a dispute or

difference in interpreting a contractual element;

• Uncertainty about external authorities – the role of external agencies to facilitate or erect barriers to cooperation between two parties.

AsAxelrod(1984)noted,

Without the shadow of the future, cooperation becomes impossible to sustain. Thus, the role of ‘time perspectives’ is critical in the maintenance of cooperation. When the interaction is likely to continue for a long time, and the players care enough about their future together, the conditions are ripe for the emergence and maintenance of cooperation (pp. 181-182).

5.3 Strategicmandateagreements Theprovincelauncheditsinitialstrategicmandateagreement(SMA)processwithOntariouniversitiesandcollegesin2012asamechanismtoincreaseinstitutionaldiversitybyfocusingoninstitutionalstrengthsandtoinformfuturefundingallocationsandprogramapprovals.TheHigherEducationQualityCouncilofOntariowasaskedtoestablishanexpertpeerreviewpaneltoevaluatetheseinitialSMAsinanefforttoidentifyinstitutionsthatwouldhavetheabilitytoimproveproductivity,qualityandaffordabilitythroughinnovationanddifferentiation.Fundingallocationswouldberecommendedfor2013-14.Unfortunately,thepanelchosenottomakefundingrecommendationsas“therewasnotsufficientdiversityamongmandateagreements,particularlywhenexaminedwithineachofthecollegeanduniversitysectors,toallowforidentificationofsomeinstitutionsasleads”(HigherEducationQualityCouncilofOntario,2013,p.6)andinsteadchosetoadvisethegovernmentonthevariousthemesextractedfromtheSMAs.Inlate2013,theMinistrycalledforrevisedSMAs(2014-15to2016-17)tobedevelopedwithinthecontextofOntario’sdifferentiationpolicyframeworkwhichhadbeenreleasedinNovember2013.Institutionswererequiredtohighlighttheirareasofinstitutionalstrengthsundereachofthegovernmentprioritiesofjobs,innovationandeconomicdevelopment;teachingandlearning;improveaccess,retention,andsuccesstopostsecondaryeducationforunderrepresentedgroups(Aboriginal,FirstGeneration,StudentswithDisabilities)andFrancophones;research;thebreadthofprogramming,enrolmentandcredentialsoffered;initiativesinstudentmobility;andidentifyfutureaspirations.Institutionalandsystem-widemetricswerealsodevelopedtomonitorperformanceovertime.OnceinstitutionssubmittedtheirrevisedSMAs,theprovincerequestedinstitutionstoworkwithaSpecialAdvisortotheMinister,tocompletetheSMAprocessbyMarch31,2014,atwhichtimetheSMAsweresignedbytheinstitutionandthegovernment.“WhilethefirstsignedSMAs,createdcooperativelybetweentheministryandtheinstitutions,reflectastrongeralignmentbetweeninstitutionalaspirationandtheevidenceofdifferentiation,itiscriticalthatthenextroundofSMAsseizetheopportunitytomovestronglyandboldlytowardsmoredifferentiatedmissionsandstrategicpathways”(Jonker&Hicks,2016,p.4).


6 Methodologyandliteraturereview Thisstudywilldrawuponseveralbodiesofliteraturethatfallundertherubricoforganizational(populationecology,resourcedependency,institutionaltheory)andglobalizationtheoriestohelpexplaininstitutionalbehaviorsandresponsestoexternalforcessuchasgovernmentpolicy(someattachedtofinancialincentives,somenot),andhowsuchpolicyleverscanenhanceorhinderstudentmobilityandinstitutionaldifferentiation.Textualanalysisofgovernmentpoliciesandpolicystatements,aswellasthecriticalbodiesofliterature(bothOntariofocusedaswellasinternational),willbeusedtoshinethelightupontheapplicationandoperationalizationofthesetwopublicpolicygoals.Thestudywillalsoexamineaselectionofarticulationagreementsbetweenuniversitiesandcolleges.Relevantinstitutionalcharacteristicsincludethetypeandsizeofinstitutions,andthelocationsoftheinstitutionsthatarepartytotheagreement.Thestudywillalsoexaminetheextenttowhichvariousinstitutionaltypeshavebeenengagedinstudentmobilityandwillcompareandcontrastthevariousstrategiesusedtosatisfythispublicpolicygoal.Forinstance,transferactivityfromthefallof2014tothefallof2015usingtheCommonUniversityDataOntario(hostedontheCouncilofOntarioUniversitieswebsite),whichidentifiesthenumberofstudentswhoappliedandenrolledasadegreeseekingtransferstudent.Transferstudentsaredefinedasthosethatattendedanotherpostsecondaryinstitutionandrequestedthetransferofcredits.Universitieswereclusteredbysize(Small:lessthan12,000FTE;Medium:12,000FTEto27,000FTE;Large:above27,000FTE)andbytypeusingthelatestMaclean’suniversityrankingclassification(primarilyundergraduate,comprehensiveandmedical/doctoral)andbyclassifyingOCADUniversityandAlgomaUniversityasspecialpurposeinstitutions.Inordertogaininsightintothecredittransferanalysis,thestudyreviewedthetransfercreditsectionoftheMulti-YearAccountabilityAgreement(MYAA)reportforeachOntarioUniversityfortheperiod2009-10to2013-14inordertogaininsightsintothemechanismsusedbyinstitutionswhomoresuccessfullyparticipatedinthetransfercreditsystemascomparedtoothers.OverallobservationswerefirstderivedfromreviewingtheMYAAfortheperiodanddrawingoutkeyobservationsbyinstitution.Thesekeyobservationswerefurthersummarizedbyclusterofinstitutionstodrawoutdifferencesbyclusterthatmayaccountforthedifferencesintheextentoftransferregistrationasapercentageoftransferapplicationbycluster.Thefocusofthisanalysisisoninstitutionalmechanismsusedtoincreasestudentmobilityandisnotanevaluationofstudentdemand.TheMYAAisapubliclyavailablereportintendedtoprovidetheGovernmentofOntariowithatoolforpubliclyreportingontheperformanceofOntario’spostsecondaryinstitutions.Withrespecttocredittransfer,theMinistryisseekingtoholdinstitutionsaccountableforthelevelofactivitythatcontributedtomaintainingorimprovinganinstitution’seffortstodevelopandenhancecredittransfer.Whilethisreporthasbeeninplacesince2006-7,thefocusoncredittransferwasfirstintroducedinthe2009-10MYAA.Atthattime,institutionswererequiredtoreportstepstakentoenhancethestudent’s“transitionexperienceeitherfromcollegetouniversityoruniversitytouniversity”andtoshowcasea“promisingpracticeusedtodevelopandenhancecredittransfer.”From2010-11to2012-13,institutionswererequiredtoreportontheirprogressunderthefollowingthreemainthemes,“expandingtransferpathways”,“providingsupportservicefortransferstudents”and“improvingtransparencyandaccesstoinformation”.Thesecategorieswereeliminatedin2013-14andinstitutionsweresimplyrequiredtoreportonactivitiesthatcontributedtomaintainingorimprovinganinstitution’seffortstodevelopandenhancecredittransfer.


7 Reviewoftheliteratureoninstitutionalbehaviour Thefieldoforganizationalstudiescanbeusedasaneffectivetooltounderstandinstitutionalresponsestogovernmentdirectivesfromamacroperspective.Itisanexaminationoftherelationshipbetweentheinstitutionanditsenvironment.Thisstudywilldrawfromorganizationalandglobalizationtheoriestobetterunderstandinstitutionalresponsestotheprovince’sdirectivetoincreasediversityandstudentmobilitythroughitsreviewofpolicylevers.Itshouldbeacknowledgedthatexternaldemandsforchange,suchasglobalforces,canshapeorganizationalchange.Clark,Moran,Skolnik,andTrick(2009)observedthatglobalforceshelpedshapedtoday’sOntario’shighereducationsystem.Institutionsareexpectedtocollaboratewithindustrytoincreasethecountry’seconomiccompetitivenessandmustadopttheirprogramstoprepareaworkforcethatwillassistemployerstobegloballycompetitive.Institutionsmustalsoadapttheirbusinessprocessesforgreaterefficiencyasgovernmentplacesincreasedrelianceonmarketandquasi-marketforces,therebyincreasingcompetitionforresourceswhileplacingrestrictionondegreegranting.Levin(2004)madeuseofglobalizationtheory(globalmarketplaceisthedriveroforganizationalchange)toexplaintherationaleforbaccalaureate-degreegrantinginCanadianandAmericancommunitycolleges.Levinsuggestedthatexternaldemands(demandsfromeconomicmarketplacebeyondvocationaltraining)forhighereducationandtrainingdroveinstitutionstoaltertheirmissionsbyofferingbaccalaureatedegrees.VanVught’s(2008)theoreticalframeworkforexplainingdiversityanddifferentiationinhighereducationsystemsdrewfrompopulationecology,resourcedependencyandinstitutionaltheory.Populationecologyfocuses“onthesourcesofvariabilityandhomogeneityoforganizationalforms.Itpaysconsiderableattentiontopopulationdynamics,especiallytheprocessesofcompetitionamongdiverseorganizationsforlimitedresourcessuchasmembership,capitalandlegitimacy”(HannanandFreeman,1989,p.13).Inthismodel,“theenvironmentdetermineswhichorganizationssucceedandwhichfail”(VanVught,2008,p.158).Thisperspectivewouldsuggestthatorganizationsneedtodrawsufficientresourcesfromtheirenvironmenttosurviveandwhenresourcesarelimitedandmustcompetewithotherorganizationstosecuresufficientresources.VanVught(2008)drewonresourcedependencyperspective,whichunlikethepopulationecologyperspective,contendthatwhileorganizationsareinfluencedbytheirenvironment,theycanalsoinfluencetheirenvironmentfortheirsurvival.“Competitionforscarceresourcesforcesorganizationstomoreorlesssimilarresponses,butalsothat,whenconfrontedwithscarcityofresources,organizationsmaywanttotrytoinfluencetheirenvironmentalconditionsinordertosecurebetterconditions”(p.161).VanVught(2008)drewfrominstitutionaltheorytoexplainhowinstitutionstendtoactwhenthreatenedbyalackofresources.Institutionaltheoryexaminestheenvironmentaleffectsofsocialrules,normsandvaluesthatshapeorganizationalbehavior.Itessentiallycontendsthatanorganizationwilltakeintoaccountthesuccessofotherorganizationsindevelopingitsownstructuresandprocesses.Institutionaltheory“favorslocalandinstitutionalactorsovereconomicmarketsandcompetitionasjustifiableexplanationsoforganizationalactionandalteration”(Levin,2004,p.3).RelyingontheworkofDiMaggioandPowell(1983)whichidentifiedthreepressuresthatleadtogreateruniformityofinstitutions–mimeticisomorphism(organizationsimitatingthebehaviorofsuccessfulorganizationsastheysufferfromacademicdrift,ambiguousgoalsoruncertaintycausedbypoorlyunderstoodtechnologies),normativeisomorphism(mimickingestablishedprofessionalnorms)andcoerciveisomorphism(pressuresfromothercontrollingorganizationsonwhichtheorganizationisdependentsuchasgovernmentpoliciesandlaws),vanVught(2008)formulatedthefollowingtwoproposition:

thelargertheuniformityoftheenvironmentalconditionsofhighereducationorganizations,thelowerthelevelofdiversityofthehighereducationsystem…[and,]…thelargertheinfluenceof


academicnormsandvaluesinahigheducationorganization,thelowerthelevelofdiversityofthehighereducationsystem(p.162).

ThefollowingsectionwilldrawfromorganizationalandglobalizationtheorytoinformsomeofthediscussionofpolicyleversordriversthatimpactinstitutionaldifferentiationandstudentmobilityasappliedbyCodlingandMeek(2006)andReichert(2009).

8 Policyleversordriversthatimpactdifferentiationandstudentmobility Policymakersandinstitutionalleadersareinterestedinimplementingthemosteffectiveprocessesandpoliciesthatwillincreasedifferentiationandstudentmobility.ThefollowingwilldrawfrominternationalandCanadianexperiencesandpracticestoidentifybothformalandinformalmethodsofachievingdifferentiationandstudentmobility.

Formalmethodsofpromotingdiversityemphasizetheroleofstateregulationforsustainingtheseparateinstitutionaltypes…[while]informalpromotionofdiversityisrealisedthroughinter-institutionalcompetitionforpeopleandresourcesandthroughsoftnormsofqualityassurance…[with]theunderlyingassumptionofsuchapproachesusuallylikenHEsystemstomarketsinwhichinstitutionscompeteforresources”(Reichert,2009,pp.15-16).

8.1 Differentiation ThereareanumberofkeyprovincialpolicymechanismsthatcanandhavebeenusedbytheprovinceofOntariotoimpacttheextentofdifferentiation,namelythecreationofnewinstitutionaltypes(discussedinaprevioussection),fundingandenrolmentpolicies,increasedcentralplanning,competitionforfunding,andtheuseofstrategicmandateagreements(discussedinaprevioussection).UniversitiesandcollegesinOntarioaremainlyfundedthroughgovernmentoperatinggrantsandstudenttuitionfees,essentiallycreatingauniformfundingregimeenvironmentineachsector.Thegovernmentcontrolstheamountofgrantitwillallocatethroughenrolmentlevels(rewardingenrolmentgrowthwhileinstitutionsarefreetoallocatethesefundsbetweentheirteaching,researchandcommunityservicemissions)andfundsnewinitiativesmainlythroughspecial-purposegrants.“Thefundingformulasarethemostpowerfulinstrumentsavailabletogovernmenttosteerchangesinthesystemandinthebehaviorofinstitutions”(HigherEducationQualityCouncilofOntario,2013,p.14).Domestictuitionfeesareregulatedbygovernment(providenoincentiveforinstitutionstodifferentiatetheirprogramsbyfeelevels)whileinternationalstudentfees,someprofessionalandallgraduateprogramfeesarederegulatedallowingeachinstitutiontodeterminetheirfeelevels.Special-purposegrantshavebeenusedbytheprovinceinsupportofanumberofinitiatives,includingthespecialmissionsofnorthernuniversities,bilingualismgrantstosupporttheofferingofmorecoursesinFrenchaswellasdifferentiationgrantsinsupportofaninstitution’sdifferentiatedroleincludingtheprovisionofAboriginaleducation.However,thesegrantsaccountedforlessthan12%ofthebasicformulagrantin2015.Therecentallocationofgraduate(master’sanddoctoral)enrolmentspacestouniversitiesfirststartedasaresultofthe2005budgetannouncementfollowedbyaJune2006announcementbytheMinistryofits


graduateexpansionplansresultingingraduateenrolmenttargetsbeingallocatedtoalmostalluniversitieswhilesomeresearch-intensiveuniversitiesreceivedadditionalspaces.While,universitiesinOntariowerepreviouslydifferentiatedbytheextentofgraduateprogramstheyoffered,theallocationofgraduateenrolmentfundingthroughouttheprovincedecreasedtheextentofprogrammaticdiversityintheprovince(Piché,2014).Fallis(2013)suggestedthatasubgroupofuniversitiesshouldfocusondoctoraleducationandconducthighqualityresearchacrossarangeoffieldswhileallotheruniversitiescouldfocustheirattentiononundergraduateeducationandtheprovisionofmaster’sprograms.ItshouldbenotedthattheMinistryofAdvancedEducationandSkillsDevelopment(MAESD)hasrecentlyengagedboththecollegeanduniversitysectoraroundpotentialchangestothefundingformula.InDecember2015,MAESDreleaseditsreport,FocusonOutcomes,CentreonStudents,outliningtheresultsofextensiveconsultationswiththepostsecondarysectoronuniversityfundingreformandbegantheprocesstomodernizethefundingmodelforuniversities.ThenewfundingmodelisanticipatedtobetteralignfundingwithinstitutionalstrengthsandotherprioritiesidentifiedintheSMAprocess.MAESDisalsoexpectedtobeginthenextroundofSMA(2017-18to2019-20)discussionswithinstitutionsin2017thatwouldcoincidewiththeimplementationofthenewfundingmechanismswithpotentiallymorecompetitiveperformance-basedfundingwhileminimizingthefundingdistributionamonginstitutions.CodlingandMeek(2006)developedtwelvepropositionsondiversityinhighereducationmainlythroughtheirobservationsofAustralia’sandNewZealand’shighereducationsystems.Theyposit,insupportofvanVught(2008),thatahomogenousenvironmentwillpromotealackofdiversityorinstitutionalconvergenceunlessthegovernmentadoptsformalpolicyinterventionstopromotediversityandsustainexistingdifferences.Theyalsopositthatauniformfundingregime,astheonecurrentlypresentinOntario,willpromotetheconvergenceofinstitutionsifinstitutionsarenotprovidedwithfinancialincentiveswithexplicitdiversityobjectives.Piché’s(2015b)policyanddescriptiveanalysisofthefactorsthatpromotedorhindereddiversityanddifferentiationinOntario’suniversitysectorsupportedthisviewandidentifiedthelackofdiversityobjectivesinOntario’segalitarianoperatingfundingmodelasamajorcontributortothecurrentlevelsofdiversityinthesector.However,theuseoffederalresearchgrantfundinginCanada“distributedonthebasisofapeerreview,competitiveprocessincreasedthepotentialfordiversification”p.52.JonkerandHicks(2016)reinforcedthatinstitutionsshouldbefundedtoprovideaccesstotraditionallyunderrepresentedstudents,andcalledforaconcentrationofresearchresources(includingfundingforgraduateeducation)intoalimitednumberofresearch-intensiveinstitutions.Regionaluniversitiesshouldalsobefundedtoprovide“abalancedsetofprogramsandserviceswithamoremoderateresearchemphasistotheirregionaldemographicandeconomicbase”(p.4).Theneedtoremaingloballycompetitive,combinedwithinternationalrankingschemesforhighereducationresultedinsomeEuropeancountriesprovidingadditionalfundingtoafewinstitutionsthatarewellplacedinternationallytoexpandtheirglobalresearchcompetitiveness.SuchinitiativeshavebeenintroducedintheUK(UKResearchAssessmentExercise),Germany(Exzellenzinitiative)andinFrance(PlanCampus)(Reichert,2009).InOntario,Piché(2015a)calledforseparateanddistinctfundingformulasforeachofthethreeuniversityclusters(UniversityofToronto,mainly-undergraduateuniversitiesandresearch-intensiveuniversities)whileJonkerandHicks(2016)recommendedthattheOntariouniversitysectorfundingformulashouldberestructuredinsuchawaytoensurethattheUniversityofToronto“continuestobeabletoplayitsuniqueandpowerfulflagshiproleinOntario”(p.4).Piché(2015a)andtheHigherEducationQualityCouncilofOntario(HEQCO)alsocalledforincreasedcentralplanninginOntario’shighereducationsystem.HEQCOnotedthat“differentiationworksbestwhencoordinatedandsupportedatthesystemlevel,withacentralhandguidingthedevelopmentofdifferentiationbetweentheparticipatinginstitutions…pastexperienceinOntariosuggeststhatintheabsenceofasteeringhand,institutionsdrifttowardshomogeneitymorethantheystrivefordiversity”


(Jonker&Hicks,2016,p.10).Theextentandnatureofcentralplanningcouldalsohaveahomogenizingeffect.AsnotedbyBirnbaum(1983),centralplanningcanrestrict“experimentalinnovationsofinstitutionstheirsearchforfitness.Second,state-leveldoesnotreflectknowledgeabouthowinstitutionsadjusttotheirniches.Third,state-levelplanningleadstocentralization,whichpavesthewayforhomogenizationofnorms,values,andstructuresandthusdecreasesdiversity”(asquotesbyHuisman,1998,p.83).Anycentralplanningroleshouldthereforebelimitedtomaintainingdifferencesamonginstitutionsandavoidhomogenization.CodlingandMeek(2006)alsodrewfromtheworkofJones(1996)andhisCanadianexperiencetosuggestthat“thegreatertheco-operativeactivitybetweeninstitutionswithinahighereducationsystem,thegreaterthepotentialforinstitutionalconvergence”(p.16).HoweverinEurope,somepolicymakersandnationalagencieslooktoincreasecooperationbetweeninstitutionstoreducefragmentation,duplicationandincreaseeconomiesofscaleindifferentiatedsystems.ThefragmentationofFrance’shighereducationsystemcomprisedofdifferenttypesofinstitutions(universitiesandgrandesécoles)thataregovernedbyseparateauthoritiesandseparateregulatoryframeworkshasbeenseenasanimpedimenttotheirglobalresearchcompetitiveness.Franceintroduceditspolesderechercheetd’enseignementsupérieurthatgroupsinstitutionsofdifferentprofilestoinvestinsharedresearchinfrastructureatregionallevelstoincreasetheirinternationalresearchcompetitiveness.CooperationamonginstitutionaltypesisalsoaconcernbypolicymakersinSwitzerland,whichhasthreetypesofhighereducationinstitutions,universities,universitiesofappliedsciences(Fachhochschulen)andteachertraininginstitutions(PädagogischeHochschulen).Researchfundsaremadeavailabletoencourageinter-institutionalcooperationinSwitzerlandandfunding“forDoctoralschoolsismadeavailableontheconditionthatcooperationbetweenseveraluniversitieswouldcreatesufficientcomplementarityandcriticalmass”(Reichert,2009,p.146).Academicnormsandvalueshaveoftenbeenidentifiedasadriverofinstitutionalconvergencethatmayundermineinstitutionalandpoliticalattemptstoincreaseinstitutionaldifferentiation.“Thus,competitionbetweenhighereducationinstitutionsshouldnotbeseenonlyascompetitionforresourcesbutalso,throughthevaluesystemofacademicstaffandleadership,ascompetitionforstature,prestigeandlegitimacy”(Reichert,2009,p.19)thatencourageconformity.InSwitzerland,differentacademicnormsandvaluesfirmlysupporttheseparaterolesofitsthreesectors.Reichert(2009)notednotendencyofacademicsinuniversitiesofappliedsciences“toemulateuniversityvaluesandbehaviorintermsofshiftingweightstobasicresearchperformanceormoretheoreticaleducationprogrammes”(p.107).Thislackoftendencytoemulateuniversitieswasattributedtothehiringcriteriainuniversitiesofappliedsciencesthatemphasizeprofessionalexperienceintheiracademicappointments.InFrance,theseparationofuniversitiesandgrandesécolesismaintainedbytwoparallelvaluesofensuringegalitarianaccesswhilemaintainingeliteeducation.InOntario,academicnormsandvaluesofquality,reputation,academicfreedomandinstitutionalautonomy“mayworksostronglyagainstspecializationthatitcouldbearguedthatlittlecanbedonetomoveanyofthem(universities)towardspecialization”(Clark,Moran,SkolnikandTrick,2009,p.178).

8.2 Studentmobility Theabilityofstudentstomovefrominstitutiontoinstitution,orfromprogramtoprogram,signalsthatahighereducationsystemisstructuredinsuchawaythatmaximizeschoiceforstudents,aswellasafairlystraightforwardwaytocorrectaninitialerrorininstitutionorprogramchoice.Thenumberonepriorityofanyeducationalsystem–startingwithelementaryandsecondarystreams,andthetransitiontopostsecondaryeducation–istocreatecurriculumandco-curricularprogrammingthathelpsstudentsmakeinformedPSEchoiceandthishelpensureagoodfitbetweenstudentandprogramchoice.This,initself,isextraordinarilychallenging,assomanyfactorsandlifecircumstancesgetinthewayofyoungpeopleknowingwhattheywanttodo,orbetteryet,whattheyarecapableof,whenitcomestotheircareerandvocationaleducationalaspirations.


Studentmobilityisonewaypublicpolicymakersseeananswertothechallengeofprogramchoice.Students’abilitytotakecorrectiveactionwhentheyfeeltheyhavemadeanincorrectinitialchoice–thattheyhavehadsufficientPSEexperiencetoknowwhatprogramisrightforthem–isanimportantprincipalthatshouldbeafeatureofanyaccessibleandequitablesystemofhighereducation.Althoughitisnotthefocusofthispaper,studentassistanceprogramsareoneimportantleverinhelpingimprove–orinsomecasesimpede–thedegreeandfacilityofstudenttransfer.Studentaidpoliciessuchaseligibilitytermlimits,loanlimits,limitsonprogramswitching,bridgingprogrammingeligibilityandthelikealleitherhelporhinderstudent’sabilitytotakecorrectiveactioninaddressingabadfirstchoicewhenitcomestotheirPSEcareer.UnderthecurrentOSAPregime,eligiblestudents–thosestudyingawayfromhome–areentitledtoreceivea“distance”grant,astandardamountof$500pertermupto$1,500forathree-termacademicyear.Thecriteriaforthegrantinclude:

• Attendanceatapublicly-assistedcollegeoruniversityinOntario.• Oneofthefollowingdescribestheapplicant:

o You’rea“dependentstudent”(i.e.,parentalinformationwasrequiredforyourOSAPApplicationforFull-TimeStudents)andyou’relivingwithyourparent(s)duringyourstudyperiod.

o You’rean“independentstudent”(e.g.youhavebeenoutofhighschoolforatleast4yearsandyoudonothaveaspouseand/ordependentchildren)andyou’relivingwithyourparent(s)duringyourstudyperiod.

o You’remarriedorinacommon-lawrelationship.o You’reasole-supportparent.

• Thestudenthasbeenassessedashavingatleast$1.00offinancialneedundertheOntarioportionoftheCanada-OntarioIntegratedStudentLoan.

• Thestudent’shomeaddressis80kmormorefromtheclosestpublicly-assistedOntariopostsecondaryschoolthatmatchestheschooltypeyouareattending(i.e.,80kmfromacollegeifyouareacollegestudent,80kmfromauniversityifyouareauniversitystudent).(SeeexemptionforFrancophonestudents,below).

Ifastudenthasself-identifiedasbeingaFrancophonestudentonyourOSAPstudentprofile,thestudentmaystillbeconsideredforthisgrantifthere’sapublicly-assistedcollegeoruniversitywithin80kmofyourhomebutitdoesn’tdeliveryourprogramofstudyinFrench.Thisgrantimplicitlyrecognizesthat,inadifferentiatedworld,notallprogramswillbelocatedwithinastudent’seasycommutingdistance.Relocationmaybenecessary.Althoughthisispotentiallymoretroublingwhenconsideringthemandateofthecollegesectorandtherolethatinstitutiontypeissupposedtoplayintheeconomiclifeandvibrancyofthecommunityinwhichitissituated,universityprogramsmaybedistributedinsuchawaythatrequiresrelocationforstudies.Thereare,however,otherlessobviouspoliciesthatcanimpedeboththestudentmobilityandlife-longlearningagendasthatarebothsodominantin21stcenturydiscussionsofthepurposeofhighereducation.Forinstance,repaymentandrehabilitationrulesthatstipulatetherulesaroundre-applyingforstudentassistanceeitheronceaborrowergoesintorepayment–orworse,defaultsontheirloans–canmeaneitherstudentsareshutoutforeverfromre-engaginginpostsecondaryeducationormakere-entrysodauntingthatitsimplydoesn’tappeartobeanoption.Thismaybeparticularlytrueforthosestudentswhoareorwerenotabletotakequickcorrectiveaction–thosethatdroppedoutoftheirPSEprogramswithnocredentialbutresponsibleforrepayablestudentaid.Ifweweretoregardstudentmobilityinitsbroadestnotion,theabilitytore-engageinaprogramoftrueinterest(oraprogramthatbettermatchestheirabilities)


laterinlife,withouthavingtocopewithinsurmountablebarriers,isalsoafacetofaPSEsystemthatfacilitatesstudentmobility.Inadditiontothefunctionsthathighschoolsandcommunity-basedprogrammingperformsinhelpingstudentsunderstandthearrayofPSEchoice,withthegoalofmakingagoodinitialdecision,policychangethathelpsfacilitatestudentmobilityoncestudentsareinthesystemisanotherwaypublicpolicyseeasanotherwaytoensurethatgoodfit.Students’abilitytotakecorrectiveactionaftermakingwhattheyregardasanincorrectinitialchoice–orthattheyhavehadsufficientPSEexperiencetoknowwhatprogramisrightforthem–isanimportantprincipalthatshouldbeafeatureofanyaccessibleandequitablesystemofhighereducation.Thisisalsoanimportantfeatureofasystemthatboastsanysortofpotentialforstudentmobility.AnothersignificantpolicyleverdevelopedinthelastsevenyearsistheCreditTransferInstitutionalGrant(CTIG).EligibleactivitiesundertheCTIGincludesfundingforthedevelopmentand/orrenewalofarticulationagreements–includingspecialand/orinnovativemodelsofarticulation;theextrainstitutionalcostsassociatedwithacceptingtransferstudents(forexample,extraacademicadvisingservices,ordatamanagementpersonnelwherethereisafocusontrackingtransferstudents);datasystemsdevelopment;andbetterinformationprovision.Excludedarecapitalexpenses,aswellasthoseactivitiesthathavesecuredfundingfromONCAT.Thegrantisallocatedbasedroughlyonthevolumeoftransferactivityateachinstitution,butisalsoproject-based,insofarasarationaleforhowthefundsarespentmustbeprovided.Grantsrangefrom$70,000toapproximately$1M,reflecting,again,thevolumeoftransferactivity.

8.3 Intersectionofpolicylevers Policyleversusedtoincreasedifferentiationorstudentmobilityhaveaseriesofcommonelements–theroleofcentralplanningroleofgovernment,theuseoffinancialmechanisms,inter-sectorcooperationandcollaboration,andcompetition,whichmayworkagainsteachother.Effectiveprocessesandpoliciesthatwillincreasedifferentiationandstudentmobilitymayrequirethegovernmenttotakeamorecentralplanningrole,principallyinsettinggoalsandtargets,anddeployingappropriatefundingmechanisms.Institutionalconvergencewilloccurifgovernmentpoliciesdonotsustaincurrentdifferencesamonginstitutions(Jonker&Hicks,2016;Piché,2015a;Piché,2015b;&Weingarten&Deller,2010).Acentralguidinghandisalsorequiredforthedevelopmentofstudentmobilitytoregulateandadjudicatecredittransferrecognition,andmandatecooperation(Boggs&Trick,2009).Fundingmechanismscanbeusedtosupportincreaseddifferentiationandstudentmobility.InstitutionaldifferentiationinOntariocanonlybeincreasedby“changingthecurrentegalitarianfundingmodeltoincludemorediversityobjectivesthroughincreaseddifferentiatedfundingbytypeofuniversities”(Piché,2015b,p.66).Inter-sectorcredittransferarrangementscanalsobesupportedwith“collegeanduniversityfundingmechanismsthatwouldsupportandencourageinter-sectoralcredittransferarrangementsandjointadvancedtrainingprograms”(Smith,1996asquotedbyHurlihey,2012),therebyrecognizingbothcollegesanduniversitiesfortheirroleinpromotingandencouragingstudentmobility.Trick(2013)suggeststhatpolicymakersestablishclearandquantifiabletransfertargetsforuniversitiesbyprovidingthemwiththerightincentivesintheformoffunding“universityseatsreservedforqualifiedtransferstudents”(p.4).Inter-sectorcollaborationofinstitutionsintheplanninganddeliveryofprogramsisafundamentaltenetofamoreexpansivesystemofinstitutionalarticulation.However,cooperationandcollaborationamonginstitutionsmayleadtoadecreaseinsystemicandprogrammaticdiversity(Jones,1996).“Inter-institutionalcooperationcanleadtomorestandardizationandlessdiversityinthedeliveryofpublichighereducation”(Lang,2002,p.181).However,collaborationmayalsobeviewedasawayinstitutionsperformseparatefunctionsthatcomplementbutdonotduplicate.


Creatingacompetitiveenvironmentbetweencollegesanduniversitiesmayworkagainstincreasingdifferentiationandstudentmobility.Thecreationofacompetitiveenvironmentinaperiodofhighresourceflowwillgenerallypromotetheconvergenceofinstitutionsasinstitutionshavethefinancialresourcestomimiceachother(Codling&Meek,2006).Also,thecompetitionforstudentsseekingdegreestudieshasleduniversitiesinOntariotointroducecareer-orientedprograms(reducingthelevelofprogrammaticdiversity)thatdirectlycompetewithdegreeprogramsofferedatcolleges.Theneedtocompeteforresources(resourcedependency)mayinfactrestricttheextentofcollaborationbetweeninstitutions,therebyreducingopportunitiesforstudentmobility(Trick,2013).

9 Articulationcasestudyanalysis

9.1 Developmentandrenewalofarticulationagreements–Asampleprocess Adetailedaccountofhowonesmall,specializedinstitutionoutlineditsprocessfordevelopingarticulationagreementshadbeendocumentedinapriorONCAT-supportedresearchproject(Youngetal.,2016).Itwillbeoutlinedhere,asoneexampleofthemanywaysinwhichinstitutionsapproachthisbusinessprocess.However,itissufficientindemonstratingthenumberofofficespotentiallyinvolvedinthisprocess,aswellasthetypesofinstitutionalpersonnelthatweighinontheprocess.Forthisreason,itprovidesvaluableinsightintothescopeandworkinvolvedindevelopingarticulationagreements.Intheacademicyear2015,OCADUniversity(OCADU)developedabusinessprocessforthedevelopmentandrenewalofarticulationagreements,intendedtoincreasetheclarityintherolesandresponsibilitiesofthevariousofficesinvolved.TheexercisewasledbytheOfficeoftheAssociateVice-President,Students,incollaborationwithmembersoftheAdmission,Recruitment&RetentionCommitteeandtheFacultyandCurriculumDevelopmentCentre(FCDC).Itcoveredallstagesofdevelopingsuchagreements,includingtheirinitialproposal,development,implementation,andassessmentofarticulationagreementsandstudenttransferpathways.Italsostipulateswhatofficesorunitsareinvolvedinallaspectsoftheprocess.Firstistheproposalstage;second,thedevelopmentstage;thephaseofdraftingandagreementandseekinginstitutionalapproval;andimplementation.Thelastincludesthemaintenanceoftheagreementandtherelationshipsthatareinvolved,aswellaswhatisideallyanefficientlyhandledphaseofeithercancellationorextension.Thebusinessdocumentnotesthattheidentificationofidealarticulationprocessescanarisefromavarietyofscenarios,andequallyoftenresultfrominquiriesmadefromotherinstitutionswherethereappearstobeahighdemandfor“destinationprogramming”fromcollegestudentswhohaverecentlycompletedadiplomaoradvanceddiploma.Italsomayflowfromprofessionalassociationsfromteacher-artistsand/oracademicadministratorsatthedecanalorchairlevel.Proposalsaredeveloped(suchasaprocessforestablishingorelaboratingonthenatureoftheaffinityoftheprogram),whichthenrequireapprovalbytherelevantdeanandtheVice-president,Academic.Intheinitialstagesofdevelopment,theadmissionsofficercollectstherelevantinformation,includingalltheup-to-datesyllabioftheoriginatingprograms,aswellasanyuserdatathatcanbecollected(suchashistoricalenrolmentpatternsofstudentscomingfromtheproposeddestinationprogramtoOCADU,aswellas“successrates”).


TheVice-president,Academic,theAssistantVice-presidentofstudentsandtherelevantdeansfrombothOCADUandtheoriginatinginstitutionthenmeettodiscusstheappetiteforpartnership,thepotentialprogramsbeingconsideredforarticulation,aswellasanoverviewofeachinstitution.TheAdmissionsofficerwilltaketheleadinsettingupthemeetingandestablishingtheparticularsoftheagenda.Thenbeginsaprocessreferredtoas“assessment,”whichincludestheconsiderationofthecoursecontentintheformofprogramguides,coursesyllabi,co-oprequirement,ifrelevant,andsamplesofworkbygraduatingstudentstoprovidethecommitmentwithasenseoftheskillsandstrengthsofthegraduatesofthepotentialincomingprogram.TheassessmentteamatthisstageexpandstoincludetheFacultyandCurriculumDevelopmentCentre,asthatiswheretheexpertisesitsatOCADUintermsofprogrammappingonthebasisofcourseandprogramlearningoutcomes.Afterthisphaseofthereview,aseriesofsitevisitsarearranged.Forthethirdmajorphase–“curriculummappingandpathwaysdesign”–theeducationaldeveloperinFCDC,inpartnershipwiththedepartmentalchairordesignatedfacultymember,willbegintheprocessofdetailedcurriculummapping.Oncethepathwayisestablished,theagreementisdraftedbytheFCDC.Boththemapandstudentpathwayareincludedwiththeagreement(normallytwopages)andconstitutepartoftheagreement.(However,itvariesfrominstitutiontoinstitution,thereisafairamountofdiscretionastohowmuchofthedocumentisstudent-facing.)TheFCDCthenmeetswiththeassociatedean,chairordesignatedacademictoreviewtheestablishedequivalencies.Inwhatoftenbecomesaseparate,“parallel”process,theexerciseofestablishingequivalenciesfortheLiberalArtsandSciencecoursestakeplace,undertheleadershipoftheFCDCandtheassociatechairofthefaculty.Thispartoftheprocesscansometimesbethemostcomplicatedsinceitiswhereequivalenciesbecomethemostdifficultytoestablish,andoftentendtoresultindetermining,onacase-by-casebasis,preciselyhowmuchcoursecreditastudentwillbeawardeduponenteringOCADU.Italsotendstoinpartinformthedegreetowhichthearticulationstudentwillrequireinindividualprogramandacademicadvisingbecauseittendstorestontheindividualstudents’previouscoursechoicesregardingfulfillingprogrambreadthrequirementsinoftencollege-basedGeneralEducationprograms.Atthisstage,theregistrar’sofficebeginsitsreview,identifyinganypotentialissuesandreturnstheagreementtoFCDCtoresolvethoseissueswiththerelevantacademicunits.Intermsofthesubstanceoftheagreement,OCADUembedsitsadmissionsrequirements(GPAandportfoliorequirements);lengthoftheagreement,renewalterms,andinstitutionalcontacts.Onceitisreadyforinstitutionalapprovals(oncethetermshavebeenmutuallyagreedupon),theagreementandsupportingdocumentation(allrelevantappendixesthatestablishalltherelevantcourseequivalencies,bothprogramandbreadth),arereturnedtotheAVPstudents,theVice-presidentAcademic,theregistrarandAdmissionsandRecruitmentforfinalreview.ItisthensubmittedbytherelevantassociatedeanorprogramchairforconsiderationatSenateatitsFebruarymeeting.Therearethreephasestothenextroundofactivity,duringwhichtheagreementisimplemented:communication,recruitmentandstudentsupport.Communicationsarerequiredbetweenpartneringinstitutionsandprograms;withstudents,throughoutthevariousofficesandservicesareasofboththepartneringinstitutions,andwiththeOntarioArticulationandTransferGuideanddatabase.Thislastphaseshouldbethemostefficientandstraightforward:renewal.Therenewalphaseshouldreflectthedemandonthepartofstudents(asanaverageoverthelife-timeoftheagreement),andthecontinuationoftheprogramsthatarepartoftheagreement(whethertheyremaincoreprogrammingandwithinscopeoftheinstitution’sstrategicandacademicplans).Studentdata,majorprogramchangesandanyplanstoeither


change,continueordiscontinuetheprogramshouldbecommunicatedasearlyaspossiblebetweenpartneringinstitutionsandideallypartoftheon-goingdialoguebetweenthepartneringinstitutions.Thiswillminimizethedisruptionofstudentexpectationsandrenderunnecessaryanyorduplicativeactivitywhichcouldconstituteand/orcomplicatetherenewalprocess.Currently,thethreephasesofthefinalstage(“MaintenanceandRenewals”)involve:notificationofagreementenddate;re-assessment;andagreementrenewalandapproval.

9.2 Currentpatternofarticulationagreements ThepurposeofthispartofthelargeranalysisistoidentifythepatterntodateofthedevelopmentofarticulationagreementsacrosstheprovinceofOntario,nottogaugecurrentdemandoranticipatefutureinterestonthepartofstudents.Assuch,thispartoftheanalysisdoesnotprovideaglobalviewofeitherthenumberofarticulationagreementsactiveintheprovince,orthenumberofstudentscurrentlyanticipatinginsucharrangements.Itis,rather,toexamineasamplingofanumberofagreements,andtodetermineifpossible,whetherthenatureofarticulationactivitycanatallbeexplainedbyuniversitytype.Itis,rather,aconsiderationofwhattypesofinstitutions(bysizeandtype)tendtopartner,andwhy.Thisexerciseis,however,highlyrelevanttothegoalofestablishingwhatpurposesareservedbyenteringintosuchpartnerships,andhowtheyfitintoasystembeingshepherdedinthedirectionoffurtherdifferentiation.Table1containsasamplingof267articulationagreementsinvolvingsixreceivinginstitutions(universities).ThechartincludesonlythoseagreementsbetweenpubliclyassistedinstitutionsintheprovinceofOntario.ThereceivinginstitutionischaracterizedincolumnAbytheirgeographiclocation.(ColumnBisself-explanatory)ColumnCcharacterizestheclassificationoftheinstitutionthatincludesreferencetoboththesize(small,mediumorlarge),aswellastypeofinstitution(specialpurpose,primarilyundergraduate,comprehensiveandmedical/doctoral).ColumnDrepresentsthenumberofarticulationagreement(inbrackets)foreachagreementwithanOntariocollege.ColumnEisacharacterizationofthedistancebetweenthesendingandreceivinginstitutionaseitherproximate(within60km)ornot.Mostoftheagreementsidentifiedabovearebi-lateralarrangements(betweenonecollegeandoneuniversity),whileasmallernumberaremulti-lateral(universityhasanagreementwithseveralsendingcolleges).Oneinstitutionhaseffectivelycreatedawebofmulti-lateralarrangementsforsuchprogramsthatmeetprovince-widestandardsandcontentareconsistentacrossthecollegesector.Othergeneralobservationsinclude:

Table1SelectedOntarioCollege/Universityarticulationagreementsbyregion,institutionaltypeanddistancebetweenpartneringinstitution,2016-17

A B C D E Region Receiving

institution Classification Sending institutions (Ontario only) Within 60K of B?

GTA University of Toronto

Large/ Medical Doctoral

Seneca – (St. George) (1) Humber – (St. George) (1) George Brown (Mississauga) (1) Mohawk (Mississauga) (1) Niagara (Mississauga) (1) Sheridan (Mississauga) (1) Seneca (Scarborough) (1)

Y Y Y Y N Y Y

GTA OCAD U Small/ Special Purpose

Humber (3) Fleming (3) Fanshawe (3) George Brown (2)

Y N N Y

South West Western Large/ Medical Doctoral

Fanshawe (17) Lambton (5)

Y Y


South-West Brock Medium/ Comprehensive

Algonquin (8) Cambrian (5) Canadore (6) Centennnial (8) Conestoga (4) Confederation (6) College Boreal (4) Durham (6) Fanshawe (15) Fleming (8) GBC (5) Georgian (10) Humber (8) La Cite (5) Lambton (7) Loyalist (5) Mohawk (15) Niagara (17) Northern (5) Sault (5) Seneca (5) Sheridan (9) St. Clair (6) S. Lawrence (4)

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N

Central Guelph Medium/ Comprehensive Algonquin (1) Centennial (1) Conestoga (1) Fanshawe (1) Georgian (1) Humber (1) Niagara (1) Seneca (1)

N N N N N Y N N

East Carleton Medium/ Comprehensive Algonquin (28) Y Northern Lakehead Small/

Primarily Undergraduate

Confederation (9) Algonquin (1) Fleming (1) Seneca (1) Georgian (3)

Y N N N N

TOTAL

267

Y = 87/267 (32.6%)

• For one medium-sized, comprehensive institution, only 17 of 176 agreements are with a local institution and involve one of the university’s strongest programs. It also has agreements with all 24 publicly assisted colleges, many of which create a degree pathway for college graduates in programs that do not differ in terms of content across the college sector. These programs include: policing foundations, early childhood education, business administration, dental hygiene and other human health sciences programs, social service worker and recreation and leisure;

• For another medium-sized comprehensive institution, all 28 agreements are with a local institution; • For one small and specialized institution, all agreements are program specific (high affinity

programs); half are local and half are not; • For one large medical/doctoral institution, most agreements are local (6 of 7) and 5 of 7 are held at

the mainly undergraduate campuses at Mississauga and Scarborough; • For a smaller primarily undergraduate university, agreements in high affinity programs speak to the

institutional strengths of the receiving institution. It also focuses most of its articulation agreement activity with one local college;

• A fraction of the agreements shown in the table (32.6%) are forged between institutions that within 60 km in proximity with one another.


Table1alsoillustratesthevarietyofstrategiesthatinstitutionsutilizewhenitcomestosupportingthebroaderpublicpolicygoalofstudentmobility.InthecaseofWesternUniversity,theinstitutionhaschosentodevelopabroadarrayofagreementswithasmallnumberofcollegesinvolving“receiving”programsthatrepresentthatinstitution’sstrengths.Theyarealsoofrelativegeographicalproximity.Thisapproachallowsstudentsattendingtheirlocalcollegetocontemplateamoveintoadegreeprogramwithincommutingdistanceoftheirhome,andthereforeprovidesstudentswithanoptionthatinvolveslessdisruptionandlowercost.Sixoftheir17agreementswithFanshaweareintwoareasofprogramming;businessandbroadcasting,whichisconsistentwiththeuniversity’scurrentareasofacademicstrength(andwhicharealsoacademicactivitiesthathavebeencitedintheirStrategicMandateAgreementsascentraltoboththeircurrentandfuturefocus).Inthisway,thosepartnershipsspeaktoboththelocalneedsoftheirstudentsandbroadeningprogrammingtostudentsinthatregion,consistentwiththenatureoftheinstitution’sspecialization.AlthoughCarletonhascreatedanumberofdegreepathwayswithpartneringcolleges,ithasfocuseditspursuitofarticulationagreementalmostexclusivelywiththelocalcollege,inrecognitionofthepotentialneedsofthesurroundingpoolofPSEstudentswishingtopursueadegreeaftercompletionoftheircollegestudies.Sincethisselectionof267articulationagreementswereexaminedforcharacteristicsthatdidnotincludestudentdemand(inotherwords,weareunabletodeterminehowmanystudentstakeadvantageofthesespecificarrangements),wearethereforenotabletoadjudicatetheirquality,eitherasawayofpromotingtheirprogramsofacademicstrength,ormanagingthechallengesassociatedwithenrolmentfluctuations.Whatthisanalysisallows,however,isanopportunitytoseehowuniversitieschoosetosupportstudentmobilityinawaythatreflectsorreinforcestheirsize,programtypeandenrolmentchallenges.Withrespecttothelatter,severalinstitutionalpatternsareworthyofnote:BrockUniversityandLakeheadUniversity.Bothinstitutionsarelocatedinregionsth

Two Towers of Transformation - OISE...Two Towers of Transformation 6 If the province does indeed...

Documents

Transcript of Two Towers of Transformation - OISE...Two Towers of Transformation 6 If the province does indeed...