Next steps for the university funding formula review

The next phase of Ontario’s review of the university funding formula is beginning to take shape, and OCUFA remains engaged with all aspects of the project.

On May 11, 2016, Deputy Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities Sheldon Levy announced that Glenn Craney, formerly of the Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer (ONCAT), has been appointed Expert Lead of the funding renewal project. Craney and his team are tasked with developing design options that build on the work done by Sue Herbert in 2015. The goal is to provide recommendations to government on elements of the updated funding model by Fall 2016.

As with the 2015 funding formula consultations, OCUFA will continue to provide research and options that will create a funding model that supports a sustainable and high-quality university sector. In the coming months, we plan on making the following areas priorities for policy development:

1. Funding stability for universities experiencing demographic fluctuations. This of course includes institutions in the North, but also select institutions in Southwestern and Eastern Ontario. There are a few potential options for addressing this issue, including revising the existing corridor model to emphasize its function as a funding floor, as opposed to an enrolment cap. Given the social and economic value of university programming in the North and other regions, it is worth exploring how to enhance existing special purpose funding envelopes for these institutions, and perhaps expanding these funds to more institutions. These measures would also help to ensure that comprehensive programming at the undergraduate level is available across the province, and is not undermined by the government’s differentiation agenda.
2. Ensuring accountability without resorting to punishment-based funding. We believe measurement and accountability are important, but we do not support funding regimes where money is taken away or withheld from ostensibly under-performing institutions. A sector focused on collaborative and continuous improvement, nourished by robust data, and supported by stable funding will produce the best results.
3. An open discussion of the limitations and appropriate use of learning outcomes. The use of learning outcomes as an institutional- or system-level performance metric is a problematic idea, and it is important that a rigorous discussion on this proposal be encouraged within the sector. At the outset, it is important to recognize that learning outcomes are rigorously assessed at the course and program level. It is also important to acknowledge that existing learning outcome measures are not well suited for institutional- or system-level assessment. Development of appropriate measures will be a complex and resource-intensive process, well beyond the scope of the existing renewal project. If such measures are developed, it is important that they not be used as a punishment-based metric, or act as a pre-text for taking funding away from universities.
4. Creation of a stakeholder-led postsecondary data system. The need for better data on Ontario’s universities is at this point uncontroversial. As noted in Sue’s report, better collection and dissemination of meaningful data will dramatically improve the transparency and accountability of the university sector. However this data system is constituted, it is essential that all stakeholders be given the ability to articulate their data needs. A data steering committee, with equal representation from all sector stakeholders including government, would be one way to accomplish this goal.
5. Recognizing that enrolment will continue to be an important part of the funding model. In our previous submission the University Funding Model Review, we pointed out that the funding formula must, at some level, be responsive to the number of students in the sector and the program decisions made by those students. Student choice need not be the only metric for determining operating grants, but it should be a central one. We are very interested in working with you to determine how to update existing enrolment mechanisms in the funding model.

OCUFA leadership has already met with Glenn Craney, and another meeting is scheduled for June 8, 2016.  You can read our submission to the 2015 funding model review here, and read the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities’ report on the initial consultation process on the MTCU website. For the latest news on the university funding model review, be sure to check the OCUFA website and OCUFA Report.