May 10 2010

CUPE National Report: Have U, Have Not U

Category: Online Publication,Research,University FinanceBob Hanke @ 4:39 pm

Have U, Have Not U
(excerpted from CUPE National, May 6, 2010)

In September 2009, five Canadian universities proposed to change the way our Post Secondary Education system is organized and funded in Canada. The University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, University of Toronto, McGill University and the Université de Montréal, now known as the “BIG 5”, proposed the division of our current public system where universities would become either a research intensive or a teaching institution and would specialize in either graduate or undergraduate education. Federal funds would be differentially allocated according to the financial needs of the few universities who “specialize” in research and graduate teaching, and all others who specialize in teaching and undergraduate education. They claim this proposal to be in the interest of “world class” research, innovation and global competitiveness.

The BIG 5 proposal is a response to this funding crisis that signals to us that our academic institutions are beginning to engage in a battle amongst themselves for scarce resources and proper funding.

To read the complete report, click here.

For companion reading, see The Rise of  Network Universities: Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy by John Pruett and Nick Schwellenbach.

Tags: , ,


Mar 03 2010

March 4th Strike and Day of Action in California

Category: NewsBob Hanke @ 11:04 am

From: The California Coordinating Committee
Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Subject:  March 4th Strike and Day of Action
To:  CUPE 3903 and YUFA
Via: Bob Hanke

March 4th is before us! This Thursday thousands of students, teachers, staff, parents and workers from all over California, the nation and the world will come together in a show of solidarity that will embody the will and strength of a people ready to take a stand against the attacks on public education and demand their right to a fully-funded, quality education and an end to the layoffs and re-segregation in public education and social services.

Throughout the state of California and beyond tens of thousands of people are organizing for the Strike and Day of Action on March 4th indefense of public education. To get involved and participate in the struggle please join us in the events planned for March 4th — below is an updated list of events that will be happening on March 4th in California. We welcome all to participate in this historic day!

Form San Diego to Eureka, from California to New York, from the Mexico to Brazil, from England to Germany, from Portugal to Greece, from Russia to Japan the March 4th Strike and Day of Action will mark the moment when students, teachers, staff, parents and workers began turning the tide against the attacks on our right to education. March 4th is just the beginning of this monumental movement.

We would like to thank our brothers and sisters from New York, Mexico, Brazil, England, Germany, Portugal, Greece, Russia, and Japan for their words and actions of solidarity.

The updated version of the March 4th list of events and more information on March 4th Strike and Day of Action can be found on our website.  If you have any questions about March 4th, please email march4strikeanddayofaction@gmail.com.

Tags:


Dec 03 2009

Students Shouldn’t Pay for Crisis

Category: Book Reviews,University FinanceBob Hanke @ 3:13 pm

Underfunding shortchanges students
by Mark Langer, President of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations

(excerpted from the Toronto Star, Wednesday, December 2, 2009)

In the recently published book, Academic Transformation: The Forces Shaping Higher Education in Ontario, co-authored by Ian D. Clark, Greg Moran, Michael L. Skolnik and David Trick, the authors argue that the current model of university education in Ontario is “unsustainable.”

They conclude that our university system can only be sustained if we create a new model, with new universities that offer just undergraduate degrees and employ faculty who spend the majority of their time teaching, performing little or no original research. The book is thoughtful and well-written. But the conclusion it reaches, simply put, is wrong.

It’s not our university model that’s the problem in Ontario. It’s the funding, or more accurately, the lack of funding. For more than a century-and-a-half, Ontario has been a world leader in providing affordable public education to all, but it is abandoning that commitment.

The Ontario government’s per-student funding to universities has fallen since the 1970s from $6,500 to $4,200 (in current, inflation adjusted dollars), a full 35 per cent, more than a third. California, by way of comparison, invests twice as much as Ontario per student: $9,500.

The results are stark. Skyrocketing tuition, enormous classes, fewer courses, impoverished libraries, outdated labs and equipment, shabby facilities – and most troubling of all – the underpaying, undervaluing and sheer exploitation of a generation of new faculty who work on short-term contracts for poverty wages, with no benefits and no job security.

Faculty share the authors’ concerns about the state of higher education in Ontario and have been warning about its deteriorating quality for years. But the authors’ proposal is not about offering a better education, or even the same quality of education. They want us to offer a cheaper education by way of lower-paid, teaching-only faculty.

The authors assert that university teaching is not enriched by university professors conducting original research in addition to teaching. But their assertion is belied by another publication from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, the same body that commissioned Academic Transformation. This publication points to a number of empirical studies demonstrating that university teaching and university research are related. It also points out that there are a number of studies which demonstrate that students support this view.

University research and university teaching depend on one another. Mutually supportive, together they enrich the students’ classroom experience while enlivening faculty research. So, contrary to the authors’ assertions, their model is not going to offer our students a better quality education. It will not even provide the same quality of education. It will give students only a lower-cost education, a degree on the cheap.

We can’t do university education on the cheap and do it properly.

Where will the necessary funding come from? There are really only two sources of base funding for Ontario universities: tax dollars from the province or student fees. Consequently, there are only so many policy options available to the government.

It can continue to underfund universities and force students to make up university budget shortfalls. (Today’s students are paying 43 per cent of university operating budgets, up from 15 per cent in the 1980s.) Or it can provide lower-quality education by creating universities whose lower-paid faculty are not robustly engaged in original, teaching-enhancing, research.

Or it can increase public investment in our university system.

Ontario’s gross provincial product grew at almost twice the rate of inflation between 1983 and 2008, meaning our wealth almost doubled. But we have not invested in our public services. Quite the opposite: the Mike Harris government’s tax cuts – mostly favouring the well-off – are costing Ontario’s fiscal capacity $11 billion a year.

Ontario needs to offer our students – not to mention our families, our society, our communities and our economy – a high-quality, world-class, university education. We don’t need to make our university system “sustainable” by sacrificing the next generation of students and the next generation of faculty. We just need to invest in higher education in a way that recognizes its importance to our future. We can afford it.

In fact, given the uncertain times we live in and the challenges ahead, we can ill afford not to.

Tags: ,


Nov 15 2009

Selling Out the Public University

Category: Research,University FinanceBob Hanke @ 12:21 pm

Corporatized universities devalue education

by Howard Woodhouse (excerpted from the Toronto Star, November 15, 2009, p. A21)

Governments, corporations and most university administrators regard Canadian universities as “engines of economic growth.” Their function is no longer the search for truth, but to increase global competitiveness.

Critical questions about this new orthodoxy are rarely raised. The goal of education, after all, is the advancement and dissemination of shared knowledge, whereas the goal of the corporate market is the maximization of stockholder value. Unless these opposing value systems are recognized, the distinctive features of education are subjugated to the demands of the market.

Some university presidents have expressed skepticism toward the market model of education. Several years ago, Colin Starnes, then president and vice-chancellor of University of King’s College, argued that underfunding by the federal government over a 20-year period (amounting to 30 per cent on a per student basis) combined with increasing student enrollment (more than 60 per cent) had resulted in “a rising tide” engulfing universities.

Two related currents in this tide particularly concerned Starnes: The pressures and benefits of a vastly increased research agenda had, in turn, created a new environment in which undergraduate education was being “privatized” in the form of a dramatic increase in tuition fees. The distinctive features of openness, accessibility and quality were under threat. The net result was that the Canadian university system was becoming much more like that in the United States.

The pace of privatization has since increased, including further increases in tuition fees. The federal government would now have to invest an additional $4 billion a year in universities just to return to the funding levels of the early 1980s.

The Innovation Agenda was first introduced by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien in the late 1990s. The panel which designed the initial report comprised CEOs of private banks and corporations in addition to the president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. Not a single faculty member was included on the panel of “experts.” The report defined innovation in exclusively economic terms as the overriding need for universities “to bring new goods and services to market.”

As a result, the federal government required universities to produce research that primarily serves the needs of the market. Matching funds for such research must be found from the provinces and the private sector. Universities and provincial governments have been forced to comply with an Innovation Agenda that undermines the institutional autonomy of universities.

The explicit goal of the Innovation Agenda was to have Canada move to fifth place in the world – from its position as 14th – in research support in order to increase economic productivity. But the agenda has failed to achieve its goal. Canada has not moved into the top five countries in the OECD, our capacity to compete in the global market is much the same as it was, and universities remain chronically underfunded.

A reasoned response would be for university presidents to call for a reassessment of the Innovation Agenda together with a large increase in government funding. But the presidents of the so-called “top five” universities (Toronto, British Columbia, Alberta, McGill and Montreal) have done the opposite.

They want a larger share of existing research money and graduate education for themselves. They believe that other universities should focus on undergraduate education, which is seen as a lesser activity. Indeed, University of Toronto president David Naylor has called for more “differentiation” among universities – just the kind of system which Starnes and others have been decrying.

In order to counteract this trend, faculty, students and the general public must remind governments of their responsibility to fund the entire university system as the only place in society where the critical search for knowledge takes precedence.

_____

Howard Woodhouse is professor of educational foundations and co-director of the University of Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit. His book, Selling Out: Academic Freedom and the Corporate Market, was published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Tags:


Oct 22 2009

Save the University

Category: Conferences,University FinanceBob Hanke @ 1:06 pm

Can we see the future of York University in the University of California?

SAVE the University is a UC Berkeley faculty group dedicated to preserving student access and academic quality at UC. Both are imperiled by a UC leadership that has systematically failed to stand up for state funding.

Save the University, Wendy Brown, Part 6, is a YouTube talk by Professor Wendy Brown, Political Science, UC Berkeley, from a a Teach-in on the UC Crisis, September 23, 2009, on the meaning of the privitization of higher education and ten things that privitization generates as it brings market principles into the very heart of the university.

Tags: ,


« Previous PageNext Page »