THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER: A BOLD INITIATIVE IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN ONTARIO’S SYSTEM OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
By
NANCY BURT
Integrated Studies Project
submitted to Dr. Derek Briton in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts – Integrated Studies
Athabasca, Alberta
March, 2007
2
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
I. Introduction 4
II. Background of Higher Learning in Ontario 9 The Early Years until the 1960s 9 A History of the University of Guelph 18 A History of Humber College 21 The Two Solitudes and Attempts to Collaborate 22 The Beginning of the University of Guelph-Humber 30
III. The Early Days 36 Planning and Developing a New Institution 36 Effecting Positive Institutional Change 40 Governance of the Joint Venture 44 Early Implementation Phase 46 Curriculum Development 49 General Breadth Electives 55 Moving Forward 58 Marketing and Student Recruitment 60 Preparing for the First Cohort of Students 63 Doors Open to Students 64
IV. The University of Guelph-Humber Takes Shape 67 A New Building for a New Initiative in Higher Learning 67 Looking Ahead 78 In Conclusion 81
3
I. Introduction:
The province of Ontario has a rich and diverse history of postsecondary education. The history of higher education in the province can be traced to the royal charter allowing for the formation of King’s College in 1827 which became the foundation of the University of Toronto. Queen’s University in Kingston was founded in
1841, Ottawa University in 1848, and in 1878, the University of Western Ontario was established. Today there are 18 universities, 24 Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology
(CAATs), and an assortment of private and specialty institutions mainly offering vocational training. The two entrenched systems of higher education in Ontario are the universities, and the CAATs which were established in the mid -1960s. While each is viewed as a valuable system for educating the population, the two are separate in almost every way.
“Ontario maintains a binary system of post-secondary education. The province’s
18 degree-granting universities are distinct from the 24 Colleges of Applied Arts and
Technology in terms of requirements for admission, programs offered and qualifications awarded. In addition, accredited universities belong to the prestigious Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada, while CAATs do not” (Sedgwick, 2).
The college system began operation in the fall of 1966 when Centennial College in Scarborough, a suburb of Toronto, opened its doors to students. The Ontario
Legislature under Progressive Conservative Premier, John Robarts, had begun debate on creating a community college system in the early 1960s. Education Minister, Bill Davis, introduced legislation to create the system in the Ontario Legislative Assembly on May
21, 1965. Davis described the new system in vague terms, saying the colleges would 4
provide “courses of types and levels beyond, or not suited to, the secondary school
setting” and “to meet the needs of graduates from any secondary school program, apart from those wishing to attend university” (Skolnik, 5). From the beginning, however, the
CAATs were not seen as offering a university transfer function because, as Davis stated in the legislation, “…there is no need for such courses in Ontario at the present time”
(Skolnik, 6). In other words, the system would not mimic the U.S. model of community colleges which can act as preparatory schools for four-year degree programs in universities or polytechnic institutes. Ontario’s colleges were established to meet the needs of the province’s economy – to train students for the workforce.
“Rather than importing the two-year junior college concept from the U.S., Davis
wanted a more career-oriented college – offering on-the-job training and a wide variety
of flexible programs – that was responsive to the economy” (Tolijgic, J9).
So from their inception, Ontario’s publicly-funded colleges developed as a
separate system of higher education from the universities. University administrators were
naturally wary of the CAATs fearing that some of their funding would be redirected to
the colleges. (Tolijagic, J9). Perhaps because the CAATs were not seen as having a
transfer function to the province’s universities, and because the colleges might have
threatened university funding, the two systems have developed separately and to this day
they tend not to work together. College graduates wishing to complete a university degree
usually have to approach universities outside of Ontario to gain a reasonable amount of
transfer credit. Humber College’s University Transfer Guide 2005 – 2006, which lists the
amount of credit transfer that various universities will grant graduates of specific
programs, shows that students usually receive more credit from out-of-province 5
universities. For example, for those who graduate from Humber’s three-year Journalism –
Print and Broadcast program, Ontario’s universities that have articulation agreements with Humber and this program, in particular, will grant only the equivalent of one year of study. The University of Western Sydney in Australia will grant the equivalent of two years of study toward its four-year Bachelor of Communication program, and Athabasca
University in Alberta will grant 72 credits towards its 120 credit Bachelor of Professional
Arts in Communication Studies program, or close to three years of study. Most of
Ontario’s universities also require a grade point average of 70 per cent or higher.
However, there is an indication that the separation between Ontario’s colleges and
universities may be changing. In fall 2002, the University of Guelph-Humber opened its doors to approximately 200 students on Humber College’s north campus in Toronto. The new institution is a unique partnership between the University of Guelph and Humber
College, and offers six programs of study in which graduates earn an honours baccalaureate degree from the University of Guelph and a diploma from Humber
College. The building to house the University of Guelph-Humber is located on Humber’s main campus in the northwestern section of Toronto. The building came about as the result of an Ontario government initiative, known as “SuperBuild”, which was announced in 1999 as a way to provide funding for colleges and universities’ infrastructure, and was awarded for various criteria including the willingness of colleges and universities to work together. The initiative came about because of a phenomenon known as “the double cohort”, a one-time huge increase in the number of students who would register for post secondary education in Ontario in the fall of 2003 as a result of the Conservative government’s decision to cancel grade 13 in 1997, and overhaul the high school 6
curriculum to make it a more rigid system with province-wide examinations in subjects
such as mathematics and English. The Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris, and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham, recognized that they would have to do something to accommodate the number of grade 12 and final year grade 13 students who would enter higher education together in 2003.
Ontario universities and colleges scrambled to come up with ways to increase
class sizes. At Humber, President Robert Gordon, said he saw a unique opportunity to develop a partnership with a university. His dilemma was to approach one that would work open-mindedly with a college, a difficult task based on the binary system of postsecondary education in the province, and what Gordon called the “entrenched elitism” at the universities. He said he thought there might be an opportunity with the
University of Guelph for a number of strategic reasons, such as the university desired a
Toronto presence, but primarily because the president, Mordechai Rozanski, “had worked
for 25 years at American universities where they tend to be more open to colleges and
have better transfer arrangements. His VP Academic was from Britain where the same is
true. They didn’t carry the same elitist bias that other university senior administrators
may hold” (Gordon, interview, September 21, 2006). As events unfolded, Gordon’s
hunch turned out to be correct and the two institutions embarked on a partnership unique
in Ontario. When the provincial government announced the SuperBuild initiative, the two
institutions saw a way to receive funding to build a structure on Humber’s campus that
would allow both institutions to accommodate up to 2,000 additional students in about
five years time. 7
In a letter from Humber’s president, Dr. Robert Gordon, to then Minister of
Training, Colleges and Universities, Dianne Cunningham, in December, 1999, the
uniqueness of the joint proposal from the two institutions was underlined. Gordon wrote:
“We believe that this proposal breaks new ground in higher education in Ontario because it marks the first time a university and a college will integrate not only the admission process, which will relieve some of the academic and quality concerns that have always been problematic, but will also offer a fully integrated curriculum with each course being acceptable to both institutions. This never has been done before, and particularly not in such magnitude.”
In this paper, I intend to show that the University of Guelph-Humber, if
successful as a best practice, may serve as a test case to blur the separation between
Ontario’s colleges and universities. The University of Guelph-Humber is the first
institution of its kind in the evolutionary next step in higher education in the province.
While it is currently unique, I will show how it is an emerging model - or a
‘third option”1 - that will help break the historic pattern of divisiveness between the two cultures by providing a successful test case of university/college collaboration. The blending of Guelph-Humber, both physically and pedagogically transcends the binary divide by bringing together the strengths of a college and a university to deliver a single
system that combines applied learning and theoretical scholarship.
1 Early in the planning stages of the University of Guelph-Humber, the inner planning team from Humber and the University of Guelph began referring to this initiative as a “third option” for Ontario’s postsecondary students. Options one and two were universities and the college system. 8
II: Background of Higher Learning in Ontario:
The Early Years until the 1960s
Postsecondary education in Ontario can be traced back to 1826 and the efforts of
John Strachan, a leading member of the unelected Family Compact that ran the British colony of Upper Canada (Ontario) until 1841. In March of 1826, Strachan left the town of York, later called Toronto, and sailed for England. The next year he received a royal charter for a proposed university for Upper Canada. Strachan had originally come to
Upper Canada from Scotland as a teacher. He later became a minister in the Church of
England, and eventually, bishop of Toronto. He was made president of the general board of education in 1823 by the lieutenant governor, Sir Peregrine Maitland (Friedland, 3-4).
The concept of higher education in Upper Canada was not new to Strachan and the Family Compact. Upper Canada’s first lieutenant governor, Sir John Graves Simcoe, urged the British government to consider the importance of providing education for the wealthy class of settlers to the region – members of the United Empire Loyalists who had fled to Upper Canada from the United States during and after the American
Revolutionary War, which lasted from 1775 – 1783. Before he even arrived in Canada in
1792, Simcoe “…tried to impress upon the government at home the necessity of making immediate provision for ‘the education of the superior classes of the country.’ There was no need for early concern about ‘people in the lower degrees of life’ whose limited requirements could be cheaply met, but schools for the ‘higher classes’ could be provided only through the ‘liberality of the British Government’” (Craig, 25). His fear was that if schools were not built, the “gentlemen” of Upper Canada would have to be educated in the U.S., which could dangerously subvert their loyalties from Britain. He asked for 9
schools in Kingston and Niagara, and a university in the capital of York, with close
connections to the Church of England. Simcoe also believed a university would “have a
great influence on civilizing the Indians, and what is of more importance, those who
corrupt them” (Friedland, 5). The British government agreed to provide an educational
endowment with half the funds to be used for a university in York.
However, it wasn’t until 1827 that the royal charter was granted that would form
King’s College, the very beginnings of the University of Toronto. The elitist attitudes of
the Family Compact and their secretive undertakings were not lost on the local media.
When Strachan sailed for England to obtain the royal charter, William Lyon MacKenzie wrote in his York newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, “Dr. Strachan set out for England
last Thursday. The Episcopal clergy of these colonies enjoy themselves right pleasantly
trotting and sailing backwards and forwards between the land of promotion and British
America…His real errand is best known to himself and those who act with him upon the petite theatre here” (Friedland, 7). Perhaps the attitudes that prevailed at the time
favouring the upper classes and the Church of England clergy, helped to lay the
foundation for the binary system of higher education in Ontario – the two solitudes of the
universities and the colleges.
In 1840, the Act of Union was passed in the British Parliament, merging the two
colonies of Upper and Lower Canada and creating the United Province of Canada, in
effect ending the reign of the Family Compact and its close ties to the Church of England.
Although King’s College received its royal charter in 1827, the cornerstone was not laid
until 1842. In 1849, Robert Baldwin introduced a bill into the legislature of the new
province that converted King’s College into the University of Toronto. “It would 10
completely secularize the university, eliminating any publicly funded chairs of divinity
and all religious tests for any member of the university, whether student or professor”
(Friedland, 24). Other universities were developed in the province in the 1800s. Queen’s
University in Kingston was founded in 1841, the University of Ottawa in 1848, in 1878,
the University of Western Ontario was established, and McMaster University in Hamilton
obtained a provincial charter in 1858. All of these institutions had church ties and
funding. Queen’s University in Kingston was closely aligned to the Presbyterian Church,
the University of Ottawa was founded by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
(the Roman Catholic Church), the University of Western Ontario was established by the
Anglican Church, and McMaster University was connected to the Baptist Church.
However, some became secular institutions in 1868 when the province of Ontario
withdrew financial support from church-related universities (Friedland, 68).
As these universities grew, they remained the preserve of the male, upper class.
By the end of the 19th Century, most provinces in Canada had established wide-spread
publicly-funded elementary schooling, as most people supported the notion of basic
literacy. In Ontario, secondary education followed one of three models: “From England
came the tradition of preparing sons of gentlemen for university in schools originally
called Latin Grammar Schools…These emphasized a classical curriculum and gave high
priority to sports, all under the Anglican church’s watchful guidance…Scottish {styled}
secondary schools accommodated capable students from all social classes, preparing
students both for university matriculation and for more practical pursuits…The third model was that of the English dissenting academies, which revealed their middle-class 11
roots and aspirations by discarding much of the traditional, classical curriculum and by
almost solely offering practical courses” (Lyons, et al, 138).
After the Family Compact had lost its stranglehold on government by the middle
of the 19th Century, the middle classes took over and by 1871, Ontario passed an act that
replaced the old grammar schools with two institutions -- collegiate institutes which prepared learners for university, and high schools which prepared them for the workforce by teaching English, sciences and commercial subjects. At this time, the sciences were considered vocational and were generally not taught at universities in Ontario. However, by the end of the 19th Century, most of the universities had introduced the natural
sciences into their curriculum. As a result, the collegiate institutes started offering science
courses that were supposed to be the domain of the high schools. “By the turn of the century, therefore, despite differences in name, most Canadian secondary schools offered a rather general but distinctly academic curriculum with only slight attention to practical subjects”(Lyons, et al, 139). Also, even though Canada prided itself on losing its colonial status in 1867, many of the British ruling class elitist views remained and tainted the views of the middle class. “Canadians have historically considered vocational education to be preparation for second-class citizenship…Whereas European countries had programs to prepare craftspeople for skilled trades, Canada relied on immigration to fill these jobs. Vocational preparation in North America came to be seen as a social policy measure directed at society’s marginal or outcast elements such as orphans, young people with criminal records and slow learners” (Lyons, et al, 137).
As a result, there was not much vocational education, in an organized sense, going
on in Ontario, although some specialized educational institutions were created. In 1847, 12
the Toronto Normal School2 opened which ran school teacher education programs. Other
teacher training institutes opened in Guelph, Hamilton and Kingston. The federal
government created a military college in Kingston in 1874. Later known as the Royal
Military College, it later evolved into a degree-granting institution associated with the
university sector (Jones, 139). Lobbyists from various organizations such as the Canadian
Manufacturing Association, formed in 1887 to represent manufacturers’ interests, the
Trades and Labour Congress, and the Dominion Board of Trade started urging the federal government to develop vocational education. In 1910, the Royal Commission on
Industrial Training and Technical Education was established under the Minister of
Labour and future Prime Minister, William Lyon MacKenzie King. In spite of its
recommendations and those of later commissions, little was done to organize technical
training institutions, partly because of jurisdictional differences between the federal
government and the provinces, and partly because of the interference of outside events
such as the First World War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. Also
there was the Canadian tradition of solving its need for a skilled workforce by hiring
immigrants. “In effect, Canada made itself dependent on other countries’ skilled labour
pools. The underdeveloped state of Canadian vocational education virtually ensured that
Canadian children would be disadvantaged in the workforce” (Lyons, et al, 143).
While publicly funded universities, as opposed to those still connected to
churches, were supposed to be autonomous, the University of Toronto came under
scrutiny in the early 1900s as being unduly influenced by the provincial government.
There were accusations of patronage and partisan interference that included the
appointment of professors by politicians. It eventually led to a royal commission
2 The Toronto Normal School was situated on the site of the present day Ryerson University. 13
investigation. In 1906, the Flavelle Commission Report recommended that the University
be separated from government influence, which eventually led to the creation of a
governing board and increased powers for the University Senate. The notion of
universities being governed by the two bodies became the model for university
governance throughout Canada (Jones, 139-140). This form of independent governance
was to be in distinct contrast to the later development of the Colleges of Applied Arts and
Technology in the 1960s which were, and still are, directly controlled by the province.
The role of universities has changed over the years in Ontario. Originally, they
were connected to churches and were the preserve of the ruling classes. In the mid 1800’s
Cardinal Newman defined the university as “the high protecting power of all knowledge
and science, of fact and principle, or inquiry and discovery, of experiment and speculation; it maps out the territory of intellect, and sees that…there is neither encroachment nor surrender on any side” (as cited in Ellis, 28). Universities were to give students a rounded and broad education. However, as the universities embraced the professions such as medicine, law and business, their roles expanded from that of just educating broadly. During the Second World War, Ontario’s universities opened their doors and offered their resources to help in the war effort. After the war, thousands of veterans took advantage of federal support to attend university. Gradually, universities took on increasing roles as research institutions, partly because “war-time propaganda had highlighted the important contribution of university research to the war effort” and the general population began to regard them “as important instruments of economic and social development” (Jones, 141). 14
After the Second World War, it became clear that there was a need for new types
of skilled labour to meet the demands of the province’s industrial development. The
government created Lakehead Technical Institute in 1946 in Thunder Bay and Ryerson
Institute of Technology in 1948 in Toronto which offered skills-based programs of study.
However, both institutions were to eventually become universities.
Ontario’s Educational Boom Years – the 1960s
By 1960 it was evident that Ontario had to expand its postsecondary educational
sector, as well as primary and secondary educational offerings, as the province hit the peak educational years of the “baby boom” generation, commonly defined as including those people born between 1946 and 1964. It was a time of unprecedented population growth and the provincial economy was in excellent condition. “During the 1960s
Ontario’s population grew 20.8 per cent and its gross provincial product 122 per cent.
Total government spending jumped 296 per cent, largely in education. From October,
1962 until {Education Minister, William} Davis became premier in 1971, education spending rose 454 per cent…The 1960s was a time of rapid government growth overall, but nothing outgrew education” (Hoy, 54-55). As the population of young people increased, it became clear that postsecondary educational offerings would have to grow in existing universities and new universities would have to be created. The province encouraged church-based universities to become secular so as to receive public funding, helped to transform specialized institutes into universities, and developed several new ones. Davis’ spending on postsecondary education was strongly supported by Premier
John Robarts. “Robarts tapped Davis to initiate a building boom in the post-secondary 15
education sector never seen before or since. New universities were popping up
everywhere: University of Windsor, Trent University in Peterborough, York University
in North York, Laurentian University in Sudbury” (Paikin, 47). By the time Davis was
finished Ontario had 15 universities. Each was independent and received government
grant money to operate (Jones, 143).
While the university sector was expanding, there was a massive change taking
place in vocational education in Ontario. There had been some trade schools and technical institutes but many were private and there weren’t enough to meet the demand
of industry for highly skilled workers. In 1965, Education Minister Davis, introduced legislation that would allow for the development of a new level of postsecondary education in the province -- and the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs) were born. Centennial College in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough was the first to open its doors to approximately 500 students on October 17, 1966. Within a year, 18 additional colleges opened across the province. Although the CAATs were primarily intended as vocational training institutes, there was a mandate to provide general education, as well.
However, the legislation that created the CAATs made it clear that “the general mandate of the colleges was…the preparation of individuals to enter the workforce, with training of both quality and relevance, to contribute to the economic progress of the province”
(Dennison, 95).
The colleges were never intended to operate university transfer programs. At the
time, Davis told the Ontario Legislature that there was no need for such programs in the
province and that the CAATs were to be unique (Toljagic, J9). Premier Robarts also
believed in this separate system of colleges. Many years later, Davis told Robarts’ 16
biographer, Steve Paikin “He {Robarts} was very supportive of me when we developed
the colleges of applied arts and technology…He had a sense of its potential relevance
within the education system and social and economic fabric of Ontario. And I think
history will record that it was probably one of the most relevant decisions made and
wouldn’t have happened without the support of John” (Paikin, 47). Some say that the
separation of the college system from the universities has been a good thing for the
colleges as it has meant they are not subservient to universities, but carry the same “parity
of esteem” (Dennison & Gallagher, 96). However, it has meant that publicly-funded
postsecondary education in Ontario has developed into two distinct sectors, or silos – the
universities with their tradition of academic, theoretical learning and research; and the
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, with their tradition of applied, skills-based learning. There is no question that the CAATs filled a gap in skills-training in the
province, a gap that had been recognized since at least the end of the Second World War.
“The community colleges were the concrete result of {post war Premier George} Drew’s
realization that the province must have technicians if the economy was to expand and
diversify” (Manthorpe, 92).
It is questionable if the sharp division between the two systems serves students well, and as recent studies -- especially the Rae Commission Report on Higher Education
released in February, 2005 – indicate, many Ontarians want the divisions to break down.
“We must achieve greater transparency and fairness regarding credit recognition and
transfer between institutions. Students deserve this, and so does the government as a key
financial partner. It is simply wasteful of public resources to require students to repeat
courses covering the same material because of an exaggerated sense of self-reference by 17 any college or university” (Rae, 14-15). While creating the college system as distinct but equal to the universities may have been Davis’ intention in the beginning, it has not developed in that way. Some see the CAATs as an inferior form of education as compared to universities. “Studies…suggest that developing an alternative college sector preserves inequality of educational opportunity by diverting lower middle-class youth in that direction, while preserving the prestige and high-return programs of the universities for the socioculturally advantaged” (Dennison, 6). By the time Davis became premier of
Ontario in 1971, the two separate sectors of publicly-funded higher education were firmly entrenched.
A History of the University of Guelph
The beginnings of the University of Guelph actually go back to the University of
Toronto in the 1850s when the first professor of agriculture was hired, George Buckland.
He wasn’t a very successful professor and most of his projects failed. “Apparently only a handful (of students) ever received a diploma in agricultural science. He was responsible for starting an unsuccessful 25-acre experimental farm, located where Hart House now stands, and a botanical garden farther up Taddle Creek, towards Bloor Street. He was more successful, however, in helping establish the Ontario Agricultural College in
Guelph in 1874…” on a farm donated by the Ontario government (Friedland, 52-53).
Guelph, a small rural community in the 1870s, was about 100 kilometers west of Toronto in the heart of Ontario’s rich farmland. Its first building was Moreton Lodge which housed the administration offices until 1931 when it was torn down to build Johnston
Hall on the current University of Guelph Campus. The college opened on May 1, 1874 18
with an enrollment of 28 students. Originally the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC)
offered a one year diploma program in agriculture, by 1887 a three-year baccalaureate
degree program in agriculture was started, continuing education courses began to be
offered to the public in 1891, in 1901 a fourth year was added to the degree program, and
in 1926 a master’s program in agriculture began (Murray, 4). However, the OAC could
not offer its own credentials to students; the degrees were conferred through the
University of Toronto until 1964 when the University of Guelph became an independent
university.
In the late 1800s, social reformer, Adelaide Hoodless, took an interest in the OAC
and the education of farm women. One of Hoodless’ small children had died in 1894 after
drinking unpasteurized milk. From that time on, Hoodless worked to educate farm
women, in particular, about home economics and food safety. In the early 1900s
Hoodless and James Mills, the president of the OAC, lobbied Montreal tobacco magnate,
Sir William MacDonald, to fund some formal education for rural women. Their efforts were successful as MacDonald donated $182,000 to establish an institution in association with the OAC, and in 1903 MacDonald House was opened on the grounds of the OAC campus. “In addition to providing practical education relating to the rural home, the objectives included the training of public school teachers in home economics, nature study and manual training” (McLaughlin, 12). MacDonald House evolved into the
MacDonald Institute, one of Ontario’s most respected schools of home economics. Like
the OAC, degrees were conferred through the University of Toronto until 1964.
There was one more founding college of what was to become the University of
Guelph. The Ontario Veterinary College is the oldest veterinary school in North America. 19
It was established in Toronto in 1862 by Andrew Smith, a Scottish immigrant who had
trained at the veterinary college in Edinburgh. It remained on the campus of the
University of Toronto until it moved to Guelph and the OAC campus in 1922. It, too, offered its degrees through the University of Toronto until 1964. To this day, the Ontario
Veterinary College at the University of Guelph is the only veterinary college in Ontario
(Gattinger, 22-23). All three founding colleges, the Ontario Agricultural College, the
MacDonald Institute and the Ontario Veterinary College, were operated like an arm of
the provincial government and reported directly to the Department of Agriculture. Even the faculty salaries were paid by the Department of Agriculture. “As colleges under the
Department of Agriculture, they lacked degree-granting status. Degrees were awarded through the University of Toronto. Graduate work was limited. Although their reputation was strong and their achievements considerable, the colleges wanted to move with the times” (Colbert, 5). In 1950, Professor J. D. MacLachlan became president of the OAC and he was the one most responsible for guiding the transformation that resulted in the
independent University of Guelph in 1964. He fought hard to gain university status
throughout the 1950s and to distance the colleges from the Department of Agriculture.
When his vision was not realized in the 1950s, MacLachlan pushed for a formal
federation of the three colleges, hoping that might be a stepping stone to university status.
That strategy succeeded and the University of Guelph opened its doors to students in
1964. “Once the legislation to create the new university had been passed, President
MacLachlan worked very hard to bring the new university into being in 1964, and then to plan its expansion through the addition of Wellington College for the Arts and Sciences, additional residence space, a new library, and the hiring of all the new faculty and staff 20
for the larger university” (McLaughlin, 11). Since that time, the University of Guelph has
diversified and is well-respected for its programs in hospitality, computer science, drama
and environmental studies. However, it is still mainly known for its strong agricultural offerings, its veterinary college, and the legacy of the MacDonald Institute.3
A History of Humber College (Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning)
Humber’s history stretches back only to 1967 when classes first began in a small
elementary school rented from the Toronto District School Board, called the James S.
Bell Public School, in Toronto’s west end Lakeshore district. The next year, Humber was
granted farmland in the northwest section of the city and that has become, over the years,
its main campus, although there is a vibrant Lakeshore Campus with 4,000 students some
blocks east of the original location. From the beginning, Humber offered programs that
developed skills for the workplace. As it was one of the 19 Colleges of Applied Arts and
Technology that opened in 1966/67, it was subject to the rules governing the CAATs as
dictated by the provincial government’s Ministry of Education.4 Humber, like the rest of the CAATs, was a crown corporation and “subject to provincial regulation”. It had its own “governing board composed of representatives of the local community, as well as program advisory committees including representation from local industry,” to make sure its programs responded to needs of the community” (Jones, 146). Humber, like the rest of
the CAATs, had several postsecondary, skills-training programs and a number of
3 The MacDonald Institute has evolved into the College of Social and Applied Human Sciences at the University of Guelph. The college is composed of several academic units including Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, Geography, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. 4 The CAATs are now overseen by and receive funding from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, as do the universities. The elementary and secondary schools of both the public and separate Roman Catholic schools are overseen by and receive public funding from the Ministry of Education.
21
apprenticeship and upgrading programs. The original programs at Humber “ranged from
college preparatory programs and apprenticeships in trades such as steam fitting and
hairdressing, to the highest credential attainable at a college: a three-year diploma. Those
were offered in diverse areas such as Metal Arts, Yachting Studies and Interior Design.
Most others were two-year diplomas teaching students the skills needed for the workforce of Ontario” (Karapita, 3). Over the years, Humber has developed as one of the strongest
colleges in the CAAT system, likely because of its Toronto location and access to
industry expertise, with strengths in areas as diverse as business, communications,
manufacturing, jazz studies, funeral services, information technology, hospitality, and
social services. There were only a few hundred students in 1967, now there are almost
18,000. “The college preparatory programs and apprenticeships are still there, but they
have changed substantially. The applied skills training programs are still there, too, and
have developed into world-class operations that now train students for a global
workforce” (Karapita, 4). As a result of Bill 132, Postsecondary Education Choice and
Excellence Act, 2000, Humber and other members of the CAAT system were given the
right to offer baccalaureate degree programs in applied areas of study. Humber now has
approval to offer nine bachelor degree programs and is awaiting approval on three more.
The Two Solitudes and Attempts to Collaborate
Almost from the outset, the CAATs wanted some sort of relationship with the
universities in Ontario but the two systems were steadfastly separate. “The CAATs were
designed to be separate and distinct from the universities…One of the more controversial elements of the CAAT mission was that the colleges were not designed to operate 22
university-transfer programs” (Jones,146). One reason is that almost every area of the
province was served by the presence of a university after the education “boom years” of
the 1960s.5 Another reason for the CAATs not having a university transfer function was
to allow them to be seen as not inferior to the universities, but as a distinct and creditable
alternative (Jones, 146). However, by the 1980s, students, faculty and college administrators started pushing for ways to obtain degrees. “Some leaders within the
CAAT sector, impressed with the transfer-program arrangements in British Columbia and
Alberta, began to argue that the CAATs should offer university transfer programs or, at the very least, that universities should do more in terms of facilitating the movement of students from one sector to the other” (Jones, 151). Since the 1980s, Humber has offered a General Arts and Science program with a University Transfer Profile. The Humber
Calendar describes the program as being “designed to help students develop the skills and knowledge that they need to handle successfully the demands of studies in liberal arts programs at the degree level”. While there is no formal transfer agreement with any university in Ontario, the calendar does say “York University, the University of Western
Ontario, and McMaster University generally grant admission to University Transfer students who have completed the two-semester certificate with a 70 per cent average or better”. The universities may not offer these students any advanced standing, and
Humber’s program is designed for those who did not complete high school or who studied the college preparatory courses in high school as opposed to the university preparatory stream.
5 There is a good description of educational spending in the 1960s in the biography of then premier John Robarts: “Prime Minister Robarts and his education minister, Bill Davis, once opened three new schools in Toronto in one day. How great was it being the education minister in those days? It was fabulous. Davis’s department controlled almost seventy cents of every provincial tax dollar spent. In Ontario today, the two ministers responsible for education…spend twenty-six cents of every dollar” (Paikin, 47). 23
Many graduates of CAAT programs have wanted to obtain a baccalaureate degree
but have not received much transfer credit from Ontario universities. Gary Ellis, a
member of Toronto’s Police Service, graduated from Seneca College’s two year Law
Enforcement program in the late 1970s and wanted to obtain a degree. In his doctoral dissertation for the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education on the Justice Studies program at the University of Guelph-Humber, Ellis states: “I realize I have taken an unnecessarily long route towards a higher education, in part, due to the inflexible standards regarding transfer and prior learning assessment that existed in the Ontario higher education system…I completed a two-year CAAT diploma in police foundations and a three-year baccalaureate degree in twenty years of part-time study…” (Ellis, iv).
While this may be a longer than average time span to complete part-time studies, there is no question that it is difficult for students who graduate from programs in the CAATs to gain prior learning assessment or transfer credits from Ontario universities. “…Ontario universities resisted overtures for effective transfer agreements, and the colleges had to develop such relationships with universities outside Ontario, principally in the United
States; through distance arrangements with open universities in British Columbia and
Alberta; and with a few enterprising universities in Australia” (Floyd, et al, 57). Humber has formal transfer agreements with a number of American universities which grant much more generous credit transfer than Ontario universities generally. For example, Humber’s
2006-2007 Transfer Guide reports that graduates of Humber’s three-year Mechanical
Engineering Technology program with a minimum cumulative average of 70% in the
final two semesters may receive up to five full credits, or the equivalent of one year of
study at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. Carleton University in Ottawa is a 24
bit more generous by offering students with the same grade point average a maximum of
seven credits. Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan offers the same students
with equivalent status block transfer credit and allows them to enter year three of their
four year Bachelor of Science degree program in Manufacturing Engineering
Technology. Ferris State also accepts some of Humber’s general education courses as
equivalent to theirs, allowing eligible students to graduate in under two years.
While it is evident that many of Ontario’s college graduates have wanted more generous transfer credits toward degree completion in Ontario universities, the same was also true of university graduates desiring skills training at college to better prepare for the workplace. By the 1980s, college administrators lobbied the provincial government for greater transferability and increased student mobility between the CAATs and the universities. “While most of these discussions focused on student mobility from the
CAAT sector to the university sector, the number of students moving from universities to
CAATs was also increasing, and several CAATs introduced after-degree programs designed to provide students with employable skills to supplement their undergraduate education” (Jones, 151). At Humber, the earliest program specifically designed for university graduates was the Child and Youth Worker program developed in the mid-
1970s. While Humber had offered a three-year Child and Youth Worker diploma program for secondary school graduates since 1971, a special program was mounted in co-operation with a local children’s centre to give its university educated employees specialized training for working with at risk and troubled youth. Over approximately 18- months of classes held at flexible times to accommodate the students who held full-time jobs, they obtained the Child and Youth Worker diploma (Hook, E-mail correspondence 25
Oct. 23, 2006). Humber now has 36 programs specifically designed for university and college advanced diploma graduates (Humber website Oct. 24, 2006).
In 1988, the Minister of Colleges and Universities asked the Council of Regents
(an arm of government that oversaw the CAATs at that time) to review the CAATs and to
envision “which trends/assumptions will be the most important factors shaping the future
role and organization of Ontario’s colleges” leading up to the year 2000 (Steering
Committee, Ontario Council of Regents Vision 2000 Report, 3). One of the main
recommendations of the report was to break down some of the barriers between the
universities and colleges. It called for an increase in the level of cooperative activities
between the sectors and called “on government to expand the opportunities for student
mobility between sectors and recommended the creation of an institute ‘without walls’ to
facilitate the coordination of arrangements between universities and colleges” (Jones,
153). These recommendations created some articulation agreements between individual
universities and colleges and led to the creation of the Ontario College University
Transfer Guide in 1994 that shows students the amount of transfer credit various
institutions will grant them. In the years following the publication of Vision 2000, there
was some increased activity in terms of cooperation between the CAATs and universities
in Ontario. On the website for the Ontario College University Transfer Guide, there are
two categories under the heading of Collaborative Programs. A joint/integrated program
is described as one that brings together two or more distinct programs and makes them one for purposes of enrolment, curricula, grading, etc. Concurrent programs are described as related programs offered by a college and a university leading to a diploma and a degree, and that allow students to pursue both credentials at the same time (Skolnik, 2). 26
The main concept behind these programs is to make the applied education found at the
CAATs accessible to university bound students. One example that developed out of a
desire for closer ties between the two sectors is the joint journalism program between
Centennial College’s journalism program and studies at the University of Toronto’s
Scarborough campus. Students apply to the university and must meet their admission
standards. After completing their degree, students may take further journalism studies at
Centennial leading to a diploma or certificate. “Similar joint program arrangements exist
between the University of Toronto at Mississauga and Sheridan College, one of which, the program in Art and Art History dating back to 1971, is the oldest program in Ontario”
(Skolnik, 3). Most of the other joint programs between the CAATs and the universities developed after the Vision 2000 report was published in 1990.
Another example of joint programs came about through the York University –
Seneca College partnership that began development in the early 1990s. “The two
institutions share eight joint programs…a number of transfer arrangements, and
a…Seneca at York facility {its own building on the York University
Campus}…{Generally} the student begins at York University (two years for an ordinary
B.A., and three years for an honours B.A.) and then is enrolled in both institutions for the
remaining two years” (Decock & Greene, 12-13). However, in recent years the York-
Seneca partnership has not worked out as successfully as originally planned. Humber’s
president, Robert Gordon, said the problem is that the agreement between the two
institutions is not an academic articulated arrangement. “It is simply an expensive building on York’s property…They {Seneca} get no special privileges and indeed pay 27
for everything, e.g. sports…We transfer as many students as do they” (Gordon, e-mail
correspondence October 26, 2006.
By the mid-1990s the province warned colleges that registered nurses would have to hold a bachelor’s degree within a decade. In 2000, the Nursing Act was changed in
Ontario and required the baccalaureate designation by 2005 for registered nursing graduates. This led to nursing programs at the CAATs to seek university partners to jointly offer the training. At Humber, the School of Health Sciences entered into negotiations with Ryerson University in 1996. But by 2000, Ryerson was not able to obtain Senate approval of the proposed, jointly-prepared program (Dean, email correspondence, October 24, 2006). Humber had already in place an articulation agreement with the University of New Brunswick (UNB) for degree completion activities for its nursing diploma graduates. That same year, Humber and UNB signed an agreement, and received Ministerial Consent, to run UNB’s nursing degree program at
Humber. This is the first time that an out-of-province university’s curriculum was to be
offered at an Ontario college. Graduates take classes on Humber’s North Campus and
intern at various area hospitals. They graduate with a Bachelor of Nursing from UNB
(Proposal for Ministerial Consent to Offer a University of New Brunswick/Humber
College Collaborative Integrative Degree in Nursing, 85). The first students enrolled in
the UNB/Humber nursing program in 2001 and graduated in the spring, 2005. At other
institutions, “the joint program is still the predominant model for baccalaureate nursing
education. A few institutional partnerships use a traditional 2 + 2 model, but there is such
a high degree of integration of curriculum and planning between the community college
and the university that these cases could also be seen as fitting the joint/integrated 28
definition. All of the joint programs in nursing, including the ones that use a 2 + 2 model,
have adopted the university admission requirements, which are more restrictive than the
admission requirements in the former community college diploma programs” (Skolnik,
3).
The above paragraphs describe some efforts across the province to break down barriers between the CAATs and universities, and, while examples of the ones described above are formalized, other collaborations tend to be ad hoc and informal. The original mandate of the colleges “to provide a terminal credential that prepared learners for entry into the workforce” is still their main function (Embree, primary research interview, July
7, 2006). The original statement of the college mission made reference to general education and while each program was expected to allocate one-third of its curriculum to general education, that expectation has been unevenly applied across the CAAT system
(Jones,1986, 99). The Vision 2000 report called upon the CAATs to broaden their general education offerings “to provide high-quality career education that enhances students’ abilities to acquire information, reason clearly, think critically, communicate effectively, apply their knowledge and participate as informed and productive students” (Vision
2000, 123). General education in the colleges along with applied learning is important, but so, too, are opportunities for students to obtain the baccalaureate credential in an easily accessible way.
29
The Beginning of the University of Guelph-Humber
In 1997, Ontario’s Conservative government under Premier Mike Harris
announced plans for the reform of secondary schools. The plans included the replacement
of Ontario’s five-year high school program with a four-year program in 1999, and
included a new more stringent curriculum with rigorous testing and province-wide
assessment. “The new curriculum would be phased in one year at a time, but the plan also
created a situation in which two cohorts would graduate from high school in 2003: one
from the old five-year secondary program and one from the new four-year program. The
challenge of accommodating the double cohort in Ontario’s universities and colleges
prompted new policies and promises from the provincial government” (Winton & Jones,
1). After the announcement, there was widespread media coverage of student and parent
concerns about whether universities and colleges would have enough space for the
numbers of students expected to enter the system at the same time. The CAATs and
universities also quickly expressed concern about accommodating the huge increase in
student numbers, projected to be over 70,000. “In addition to the double cohort,
demographic changes associated with the baby boom echo {children of the baby
boomers} and an overall increase in postsecondary participation rates were also expected
to increase demand” (Winton & Jones, 1).
It was at this time (1997/98) that Humber’s president, Dr. Robert (Squee) Gordon,
began quiet meetings with the president of the University of Guelph, Dr. Mordechai
(Mort) Rozanski. In the 1990s Humber and the University of Guelph had explored a few collaborative projects “but found they could never spare the resources to get them off the ground.” Some of the “earlier initiatives considered included creative writing and 30
hospitality” (Nightingale, email correspondence, October 17, 2006). In an interview,
Gordon said the earlier initiatives never really amounted to much. He believed the fact
that Rozanski had worked in the U.S. university system for a number of years and that his
V.P. Academic, Alastair Summerlee, (who is now the university’s president) came from
the U.K., meant there was a good possibility of forging a strong collaboration around the
double cohort issue. He believed these men didn’t hold the same “elitist bias” that other
Ontario university leaders might. His belief was right and both presidents believed their
institutions could benefit from working together to produce a new initiative the Ontario
government would fund since it was feeling public pressure about the double cohort
(Gordon, interview, September 21, 2006). Rozanski had much the same recollection of the earliest planning phase. “Humber and Guelph had a long-standing academic relationship based on mutual respect…I also recognized Squee as an ‘entrepreneurial’
president who might be willing to join me in a bold initiative to create a third path…As I
remember, the germ of the idea arose during a conversation Squee and I had as we drove
together in a car from Guelph to Humber” (Rozanski, email correspondence, December
1, 2006).
John Walsh, the current Vice-provost of the University of Guelph-Humber, believes the personalities of the two presidents were a big factor in forging a relationship in the beginning (Walsh, email correspondence, September 18, 2006). Richard Hook,
Humber’s V.P. Academic at the time, says he thinks there was serious strategizing by the
two presidents and that they were in close agreement about forming a new institution to
combine the college and university in some way. “The very first meeting that I was
involved in went so well that I am certain that Squee (the nickname used by Humber’s 31
president) and Mort Rozanski had done some earlier strategizing… Squee asked me to
prepare a one pager outlining what a U of G / Humber collaboration could do to address
the educational needs of the double cohort, contribute something unique to higher
education and benefit both institutions. In that note I stressed the development of
integrated programming leading to degrees that would build on Humber’s reputation for
practical education and the university’s reputation for academic excellence. At the first
meeting I attended our colleagues from Guelph proposed virtually the same thing”
(Hook, email correspondence September 28, 2006). Summerlee, Hook’s counterpart at
the University of Guelph at the time, said the proposal was “pragmatic” and likely to be
something the Ontario government would support since they wanted “experiments”
between the two sectors. “We (all the personalities involved) thought it was a good idea”
(Summerlee, email correspondence, September 18, 2006).
In response to increasing public pressure to inject money into the postsecondary education system to make sure there were enough seats for the double cohort students, the Harris government announced its “SuperBuild” program in October, 1999.6
SuperBuild was the government’s commitment from the 1999 Ontario Budget to grant
$1-billion to colleges and universities for infrastructure, expansion and new programs.
Preference was given to joint ventures between colleges and universities. The website for
the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities under an item titled Invitation
to Ontario colleges and universities to submit proposals for funding from the SuperBuild
growth fund for postsecondary education from October 1999 listed the following criteria
for submission: the number of new student spaces the project would create, and the cost
6 News release from Ontario Government website www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/99.10/super October 18, 1999. Retrieved March 10, 2006. 32
to government per space created; evidence of student demand for the program to be
offered; evidence of the impact on community or regional economic development; and
evidence of an academic plan to provide joint programming. The University of Guelph
and Humber College jointly submitted a proposal for a new building to sit on Humber’s north campus and house the proposed Humber-Guelph Centre for Advanced Education and Training (CAET), as the University of Guelph-Humber was originally called.7 In the
SuperBuild application Humber and the University of Guelph wrote that this joint venture would “serve the needs of an increased cohort of students in the Greater Toronto Area in affordable, high quality, non-residential, accessible diploma/degree programs; meet student demand for programs that combine theoretical and applied learning that prepare them for the modern workforce; and meet employers’ needs for graduates who have both education and training and have the applied skills and the capability to grow and develop to meet future needs” (Application for SuperBuild Growth Fund, 6). In another section of the proposal, the two institutions presented a pedagogical argument: “Implementation of
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology was an innovation in postsecondary education.
They were created to meet a unique set of demographic and training needs. Ontario is on the verge of another unique set of demographic and educational challenges that must be addressed by another ‘made in Ontario’ solution. One pragmatic solution rests in the creation of a new educational pathway that combines educational characteristics from both the applied orientation of the colleges, and the theoretical foundation of universities without creating new institutional structures” (Ibid. 6)
7 Humber made two other submissions in the first round of SuperBuild applications in 1999, one for a new polytechnic institution in conjunction with Sheridan College in Brampton with the ability to grant applied degree programs , and funds to renovate buildings on Humber’s Lakeshore Campus. The University of Guelph put in a bid for $90 million for a new science building. 33
There were pragmatic reasons for developing the University of Guelph-Humber beyond the pedagogical concept of combining the strengths of a college and university.
This was an exciting and beneficial venture for both institutions. Humber’s then V.P.
Academic, Richard Hook, said that Humber had been positioning itself in the CAAT system as a strong academic organization. There were several initiatives following the
Vision 2000 report that helped Humber gain a reputation as an academic college. One example of many was an articulation agreement with British Columbia Open University
(BCOU) in the mid-1990s to help Humber’s Music program graduates obtain a baccalaureate degree. In that agreement, BCOU accepted several of Humber’s Liberal
Arts and Sciences breadth courses as being acceptable to them as at a degree level. It also allowed Music graduates to finish their degree studies through distance and online courses. In addition, they gave the graduates block transfer credits for a full three years of study toward its four-year Music degree. Other initiatives included the development of many credit transfer agreements with universities (although most of these were with out- of-province universities), and the University of New Brunswick nursing partnership. An equal collaboration with a respected Ontario university would strengthen Humber’s reputation as an academic college (Hook, email correspondence, September 28, 2006).
From the University of Guelph’s viewpoint, Hook noted that “the {Guelph}
Senate had agreed to a cap on campus enrolment…Guelph-Humber provided a new location to add another 2,000 full time students to the university without fighting the
Senate’s campus enrolment cap.” Alastair Summerlee from the University of Guelph
agreed. “Pragmatically Guelph was expecting it would have to grow (double cohort) but
we were at capacity at the main campus. Plus we wanted a foothold in the GTA” 34
(Summerlee, email correspondence, September 28, 2006). Humber’s president Robert
Gordon said, “Guelph wanted to have a presence in Toronto. Mordechai Rozanski and
Alastair Summerlee were open to new ideas” (Gordon, primary research interview,
September 21, 2006). Humber’s Dean of Planning and Development, Rick Embree said that the University of Guelph had no room to grow in Guelph and wanted to tap into a commuter student market in Toronto. It was a good way to attract students who wouldn’t require residence space on its main campus in Guelph since they had no desire to build new residences and they were at capacity (Embree, interview, October 27, 2006).
The joint proposal to the SuperBuild Growth Fund received approval in February
2000. In a letter from Dianne Cunningham, the Minister of Training, Colleges and
Universities, the government committed $28,630,000 toward creation of the Humber-
Guelph Centre for Advanced Education and Training with a total projected cost of
$44,411,000. The minister also wrote: “This grant will be provided to your institutions on or before March 31, 2000.” The two institutions were to come up with the rest of the money themselves. And so the University of Guelph-Humber was officially launched.
35
III. The Early Days:
Planning and developing a new institution:
Months before the University of Guelph and Humber College received
government funding to construct a building for the collaboration, the Vice Presidents
from both institutions started working closely together to plan ways to make the initiative
operational. The University of Guelph’s V.P. Academic at the time, Alastair Summerlee,
said that the way the venture started felt right. “By starting in the way that we did, with
presidents in support (but also saying ‘we’ll only do this if you agree’ and then leaving us
in the room to decide whether to proceed or not) we were able to develop the shared
vision.” Summerlee also recalled that the events didn’t necessarily follow in a logical
order. Shortly after agreeing to work together, and before they even knew they had
confirmation of SuperBuild, they “immediately involved senior people (deans, faculty,
and ‘influencers’). We made it clear that we needed to get some ideas down. If we all
agreed that things would work then we’d have to sort out the details AND get a building”
(Summerlee, email correspondence, November 3, 2006). The university’s then President,
Mordechai Rozanski, said he recognized the collaboration would fail if it was imposed
from the top down. “My role and Squee’s was to provide the vision, imprimatur, support
and resources via SuperBuild. We also did the promotion that was necessary to advance
the idea at the Ministry level. Otherwise, our role was to keep the fires burning and get
out of the way” (Rozanski, email correspondence, December 1, 2006).
On Humber’s side, the person put in charge of the Guelph-Humber initiative was
Ian Smith, the current Principal of the Lakeshore Campus and the Dean of the School of
Social and Community Services. His counterpart at the University of Guelph was Donna 36
Woolcott, the Associate Provost Academic at the time. “From the beginning there really
was a genuine feeling of co-operation. We knew we were working on something very
special. Donna Woolcott and I worked together as if we were working for the same
organization. It was exciting. It was fun” (Smith, interview, November 22, 2006).
Humber’s Dean of Planning and Development, Rick Embree, agreed that planning and consultation began long before learning of the success of the SuperBuild bid. He said in the spring of 1999, there was a day-long meeting involving administrators and faculty to identify what Humber’s and the University of Guelph’s academic strengths were. The next step was to identify a person or people from similar areas in each institution to spearhead each program area for development. Most importantly, if the program area was to go forward as one to develop “there had to be equal interest at both
Humber and Guelph, and the right people from each institution who could work together”
(Embree, interview, November 3, 2006). Once senior people were consulted and brought into agreement on the general concept, then academic areas of study needed to be identified. Humber’s V. P. Academic, Richard Hook said, “We considered the question of programming from at least five perspectives: i) disciplines in which we brought complementary institutional strengths, ii) areas where our institutions had growth and/or program evolution aspirations, iii) areas where we could anticipate student demand, iv) disciplines in which we expected substantial demand for our graduates, and v) program areas that were not already ‘over supplied’” (Hook, email correspondence, November 2,
2006). Humber’s project leader, Ian Smith, said the program ideas developed out of the areas of strength at both institutions. “It had to be something we could bring to the table where they (Guelph) had theoretical strength and we had practical strength. We started 37
with about 40 or so program ideas to mull over and after several joint meetings we started
to whittle them down until we finally arrived at the seven that went forward” (Smith,
interview, November 22, 2006).
In an early document of understanding between the two institutions entitled Joint diploma/degree programs - University of Guelph & Humber College, dated July 19,
1999, the following areas were identified for early development of joint programs:
Business, Wireless Technology, Police Foundations, Hospitality & Tourism (with a niche focus in international tourism/hospitality), Media/Communications, Gerontology, and
Early Childhood Education/Youth Studies. The following areas were identified for future possible development: Industrial Design, Paramedic Assistance, Biocomputation,
Environmental Engineering, Arts Administration, Horticulture/Landscape Architecture,
International Development, Family and Community Social Services. Plus there was
considerable interest in developing degree completion programs and executive degree
completion programs.8 As it turned out, some of the areas initially considered for
program development did not work out, generally because there weren’t people on each side who were equally interested in developing the program. Horticulture/Landscape
Architecture was one of these. However, there was synergy between Humber’s School of
Social and Community Services and the University of Guelph’s School of Family
Relations and Applied Nutrition, and so the Family and Community Social Services
8 Kris Gataveckas, Humber’s V.P. of Business Development, said that from Humber’s viewpoint, the joint venture with the University of Guelph was most attractive as a pathway to create degree completion opportunities for Humber’s graduates. She said Humber believed that the collaboration would create pathways for Humber’s graduates through Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) and other devices. So far, this has not occurred and Humber’s graduates receive no greater transfer credit recognition from the University of Guelph-Humber than from any other Ontario university. 38 program was moved up into the list of one of the programs identified for early development.9
Once these program areas slated for early development were identified and agreed upon by both institutions, Ann Dean, Humber’s Director of Development, did a needs assessment on behalf of the Vice Presidents Academic from each institution to determine the market needs for these programs. She was most interested in surveying industry in the identified program areas to find out how many new hires there had been, how many people they planned on hiring in the next few years, and if they believed graduates with degrees were more desirable to their industry than those with a diploma. When the data came back, there were different problems identified and associated with different programs. For example, it wasn’t clear if graduates from an Early Childhood Studies program with a baccalaureate credential would be able to obtain better jobs than those graduating from a college program with a diploma. In the case of the Gerontology program, the data indicated that there were many nursing homes in Ontario and that the job market was growing, but it wasn’t clear if young people would be attracted to that field of study. In the case of Media Studies, it was unclear if there would be enough jobs for graduates since several journalism programs existed in Toronto and the Greater
Toronto Area, including a degree-granting program at Ryerson University. “Data can tell you how successful you’ll be by what you do, or it can tell you what the challenges will be. In the end, that’s how we decided to use this data – to help us identify the challenges”
(Dean, interview November 3, 2006).
9 The Family and Community Social Services program turned out to be the first one to have all four years of its curriculum developed and approved by both the University of Guelph and Humber. 39
Effecting Positive Institutional Change
One of the first major challenges facing the Vice Presidents Academic was to gain
acceptance of the new collaborative venture from their respective employees. This was
not an easy task as there was a feeling of distrust at both institutions precisely because
this kind of cross-sector collaboration in higher education had never been done in Ontario before. Guelph’s President, Mordechai Rozanski, said he never feared a backlash from faculty or the university Senate. “Alastair {Summerlee} and I did our information sharing and mobilization work with key faculty who assumed the role of faculty champions among their colleagues. We also made very clear that this program had to be vetted by our existing governance structure, including the Senate, had to meet the same quality standards as all Guelph programs and had to avoid ‘cannibalizing’ existing offerings”
(Rozanski, email correspondence December 1, 2006). Alastair Summerlee said he knew he would encounter difficulties when the joint venture was debated in the University of
Guelph Senate, but eventually successfully overcame them by being inclusive and making sure the doubters were asked to teach in the programs so they could take part in developing the initiative. “I think Richard {Hook} and I were pretty clear that we were going to make this work – we just had to be sure we brought people with us. Sometimes that was simply helping them help us with the vision, sometimes in planning, sometimes in doing but ALWAYS with the sense that (a) if they had a concern – we’d deal with it proactively and effectively, (b) that they had control…and (c) that Richard and I were prepared to intervene on the cultural sensitivity issues on behalf of our institutions”
(Summerlee, email correspondence, November 3, 2006). The major concerns at the
University of Guelph were fears of weakening or threatening the university’s standards of 40
academic excellence by working so closely with a college. Dr. Fred Evers, a sociology
professor at the University of Guelph who went on to co-chair the Curriculum
Development Committee at Guelph-Humber said that initially “the reaction was mixed –
some people did feel that a joint program with a college would lower standards. Others
(like me) liked the possibility of combining theory with applications” (Evers, email
correspondence, November 7, 2006). Michael Nightingale, who was one of the
University of Guelph-Humber’s first two Vice-provosts, said a document on guiding principles for the new venture was drafted to show the university community that
standards were not being lowered. “This draft document was then discussed with all the appropriate committees and influential individuals on campus before moving forward to
Senate a final document which had been revised to address additional concerns that had been raised” (Nightingale, email correspondence, November 7, 2006).
The concerns at Humber were different. Generally, there was a mistrust of the
university sector in Ontario as Humber felt betrayed by recent dealings with Ryerson
University in regard to collaboration in offering the Nursing degree program. The
partnership talks fell apart at the last minute in 2000, and Humber had to seek a solution
in a hurry, and was rescued by the University of New Brunswick. (See p. 26). Hook said
Humber’s deans were at first concerned about “mutuality of respect and equivalency of
benefit”. In addition, the CAAT presidents had been lobbying the provincial government
for several years to pass legislation allowing them the right to offer baccalaureate degrees for some programming. The deans were fearful that this joint venture with the University of Guelph might threaten that initiative. They also had fears about being “a branch plant operation…a second class partner. Thankfully, the University of Guelph’s participants 41
were both respectful and candid with respect to mutual benefit. Alastair {Summerlee}
understood this intimately and provided positive and timely leadership throughout the
‘getting people together’ stage” (Hook, email correspondence, November 2, 2006).
It was good management and leadership from the two Vice Presidents Academic
to listen to their employees’ fears and, through a process of inclusion, have them actively
be a part of the vision, planning and development stages in the making of the University
of Guelph-Humber. As Hook pointed out there was much enthusiasm among those
involved in the creation once the concerns had been addressed. The literature on mergers in higher education suggest that if people are left out of the development, or believe the
decisions have already been made at an executive level without their contribution of
ideas, they become disgruntled and can hinder the project. In the mid-1990s in
Minnesota, several colleges and universities restructured and merged under a new board
known as the Higher Education Board in a bid to trim system costs. Those who were
intimately involved in the restructuring were enthusiastic but some who were close to
retirement were not included in the work. “Those whose offers of help were spurned were
the most pessimistic of the new system’s chances for success. This group exhibited
various forms of exit behaviour, from emotional disengagement to calculated sabotage.
Whether altruistic or self-interested, this broad-based desire to contribute to the making
of the new system is a critical resource for the leaders of change” (MacTaggart, 132).
In 1997, the Technical University of Nova Scotia amalgamated with Dalhousie
University in Halifax. The two institutions were quite different in many ways. In 1996,
Dalhousie had about 11,000 students and close to 1,000 full-time faculty while the
Technical University of Nova Scotia had approximately 1,450 students and 93 full-time 42
faculty. Dalhousie was a fairly large university with a range of faculties in Arts and
Social Sciences, Science, Management, Law, Health Professions, Dentistry, Medicine,
and Graduate Studies. The Technical University of Nova Scotia was more like a small
college that specialized in Architecture and Engineering (Eastman & Lang, 55-56). After
amalgamation occurred and the institution became known as DalTech, some of the
faculty members felt alienated and left out of the decision-making, particularly those
from Architecture and Engineering. “…there was great deal of concern and debate within
DalTech about what was happening and what should be done. Some argued for
acknowledging that circumstances had changed and moving on…Others called for
people…to reassert themselves to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of
amalgamation would be fulfilled. Yet others called for a new vision and structure for
DalTech…There was bewilderment, confusion, and malaise” (Eastman & Lang, 119).
It is critical in mergers, amalgamations and joint ventures between institutions of
higher learning that senior management show support and leadership by providing their employees with the skills, knowledge and perspectives needed to enact major positive institutional change. Also, they need to empower their employees by openly inviting their
help and giving committees the right to make decisions that will be acted on. In a study
on leading major change initiatives at an institution of higher learning, the authors
concluded that it is extremely important that senior management reinforce the
empowerment of their employees to carry out the change. “Most individuals on campus
did not believe that the process of leading the change initiative was collaborative unless
senior administrative staff invited participation and empowered committees. Without the
blessing of senior administrators, collaborative leadership would not work effectively to 43
advance change. Instead, it would clash with senior administrators over who leads change
and which agenda gets advanced” (Eckel, Kezar, 125).
While faculty and administrators at both Humber and the University of Guelph
had some initial misgivings about the planned joint venture between their two
institutions, it was the inclusive and consultative process fostered by the Vice Presidents
Academic that helped avert the type of upset and consternation that occurred at DalTech.
“Both Alastair {Summerlee} and I tried to bring together people who we felt were open
to the idea of joint program development and the concept of the University of Guelph-
Humber. My sense is that our positions as Vice Presidents, Academic, helped rather than
hindered the process. We consulted and, additionally, were rather familiar with the
players, their interests and their concerns” (Hook, email correspondence, November 2,
2006).
Governance of the Joint Venture
One of the reasons that the University of Guelph and Humber College managed to
come to a timely agreement for a joint venture was that they were not exactly creating a
new university/college. The guiding principle was to offer students a university degree
and a college diploma within a four-year timeframe in one location – Humber’s north
campus. “The Presidents did not seek provincial approval because they were not proposing that the University of Guelph-Humber itself grant the diplomas or degrees.
Humber would continue to issue the diplomas, as it is entitled to do under the Ontario
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, and the University of Guelph would continue to grant the degrees, as it is entitled to do under its charter” (Glenn, 5). The 44
University of Guelph-Humber is not a partnership in the legal business sense, but a joint
venture.10 The Vice-provost reports directly to the Vice Presidents Academic at both
institutions and there is an Executive Committee composed of the two Presidents, the
Vice Presidents of both institutions and the Vice-Provost of Guelph-Humber (Embree,
interview, November 6, 2006).
David Trick, an Assistant Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Training, Colleges
and Universities at the time (1999) believed the joint venture that created the University of Guelph-Humber was a good option within the existing system to offer students a
theoretical education to help them advance in the workplace, with the skills training to
help them land jobs upon graduation. “The form was dictated by the need to work within
established Ministry policies, i.e. Guelph and Humber figured out how to work together
in a way that did not require any special approvals from the ministry in terms of funding, credentials, etc.” (Trick, email correspondence, September 15, 2006).11 From his position
within the Ministry when the collaboration was proposed, Trick said the Minister and
others thought this was an innovative approach that would serve students well. They also
appreciated the fact that the two institutions were “sorting out their own problems {in
making the partnership work} rather than asking the Ministry to provide special policies
or special funding” (Trick, email correspondence, November 6, 2006). He also believed
the SuperBuild money was essential because of the space limitations at Humber, and the
fact that a brand new building was attractive in marketing Guelph-Humber to students.
Both Humber and the University of Guelph put about $8 million each into construction of
10 Humber’s director of the Guelph-Humber project for the first two years of development, Ian Smith, referred to the joint venture as a “limited partnership”. 11 David Trick was to become one of the University of Guelph-Humber’s first two Vice-provosts. He was responsible for financial and administrative matters. 45
the building to make up the shortfall from the amount covered by SuperBuild funding.
However, Bruce Bridgeford, Humber’s Director of Capital Development pointed out that it is important to define “shortfall”. “Humber contributed the land, relocated parking for the building site, plus included additional services for the students in the form of an addition to athletics for a total contribution of $8 million” (Bridgeford, email correspondence, November 6, 2006). As of the fiscal year 2005/06, the University of
Guelph-Humber started to pay some of that money back to the founders – approximately
$1.5 million. Importantly, from Humber’s viewpoint, the University of Guelph-Humber gave the college access to university level funding and tuition, both of which are twice as high for universities in Ontario as for colleges, and that funding was to be split evenly
(Glenn, 4).
Early Implementation Phase
On June 10, 1999, the two presidents signed a Memorandum of Understanding in
which the two institutions explored possible collaborative activities. These included the
following:
The University of Guelph will develop exclusive delivery of Guelph
courses/components of degree programs offered by the University of Guelph in
the new facilities providing access for students in the GTA to courses and
programs offered by Guelph.
Exclusive degree programming in which students would start University of
Guelph degree programs on the Humber Campus and then move to Guelph for the
senior years. This will help the University of Guelph have a Toronto campus. 46
Degree completion programs offered by the University of Guelph will be either in
exclusive partnership with Humber or available to all college graduates who
qualify.
Delivery of Open Learning/CE programs will be offered through the Office of
Open Learning by the University of Guelph on the Humber Campus.
Some of these items would change over time, particularly the notion that students would start at Guelph-Humber and complete their senior years on the University of Guelph campus. The way the programs ended up being developed as stand-alone courses of study made that option difficult. However, the important matter was that an official
Memorandum of Understanding cemented the collaboration.
By fall 1999, the two institutions had managed to get most of their administrative staff and faculty to believe in the project and to identify people to work on the following joint committees: The Executive Committee made up of the Presidents, the Vice
Presidents Academic and Vice Presidents of Administration; the Academic Program
Committee made up of the Vice Presidents Academic and senior administrators from each institution; the Finance and Administrative Committee responsible for providing recommendations regarding the overall administration and financing of the project during the start-up phase and on-going operations; the Building and Facilities Committee responsible for finalizing the academic requirements of the building; the Human
Resources Committee responsible for providing recommendations regarding the human resource administration of the project during the start-up phase and on-going operations; the Institutional Support Committee responsible for designing and coordinating an integrated framework of student support services, including advising and program 47 counselling, career and experiential placement services; the Ancillary Services
Committee responsible for student residences, bookstores, food services and parking; and the Marketing, Communications and Recruitment Sub-Committee.
For the purposes of this project, I will study most closely the academic side of building the University of Guelph-Humber. The early Terms of Reference for the
Academic Program Committee, made up of the Vice Presidents Academic and two other senior administrators from both institutions, was to provide guidelines for the Academic
Sub-committee (program curriculum committees) on all matters directly affecting the design, delivery and evaluation of joint programs. The Academic Sub-Committee members were drawn from various areas of the university and college that had been identified for initial and future development of joint programs. As the collaboration moved through the initial stages during the summer/fall of 1999, and into the winter/spring of 2000, a number of factors became apparent that would make the venture succeed. Michael Nightingale, one of the University of Guelph-Humber’s first two Vice- provosts (he was responsible for the academic side of the venture), wrote in a document called Milestones of the University of Guelph-Humber that the components that paved the way for a certain ease in the early development phase were: i) “the investment in developing the plans and the curriculum; ii) the willingness to start from scratch in developing an integrated curriculum of
theory and practice; iii) the commitment of senior administration; iv) the shared values in wishing to respond to growth in demand; 48
v) the recognition of the need to offer students new postsecondary educational
choices;
vi) the complementary academic strength of an Ontario university and college;
vii) the availability of a government incentive to foster collaboration;
viii) the strong concept of a four year program leading to an Honours degree and a
college diploma, with the curriculum designers incorporating the learning
outcomes for both credentials;
ix) a single admission process;
x) instructional assignments divided equally between Humber and Guelph faculty;
and
xi) physical design of the learning environment, including small classrooms and
specialized laboratories and state-of-the-art equipment” (Nightingale, 3).
Curriculum Development
By spring 2000, a Curriculum Development Task Force was put together with
fairly equal representation from faculty at both Humber and the University of Guelph
representing joint programs that were planned for development. By this time, faculty
from both institutions had met broadly and developed a working paper they called
Signature Characteristics for the Centre of Advanced Education and Training, as the
University of Guelph-Humber was first called12 In the paper, the blended programs
were described as having the following characteristics:
12 The Centre of Advanced Education and Training was the working name used by Humber and the University of Guelph in its proposal to the Ontario government for SuperBuild funds. 49
Range of rigorous and relevant knowledge-based programs designed to add value
to society, community, professions and industry; with a
Professional/vocational competency-based curriculum, providing an education
which embraces Humber’s generic skills & Guelph’s learning objectives, leading
on completion to:
A university honours degree, a college post-secondary diploma, and a skills
portfolio.
Reflect professional & academic standards that give entry to a broad range of
career work placement and higher education opportunities enjoyed by community
college and university graduates, and which enhance the institutions’ KPIs (Key
Performance Indicators).
By the fall 2000, a document was prepared called The Original Mission Statement
for the Centre for Advanced Education and Training. The document was the foundation
or guiding principles that helped in the initial development of program curriculum. The
Mission Statement is as follows: “The Centre for Advanced Education and Training
(CAET) is a fully collaborative program created by faculty and staff of Humber College
and the University of Guelph. In partnership with the provincial government, and with
private sector support, the Centre provides a new option for higher education in Ontario
and responds to the needs of an increasing number of students seeking post-secondary
education. Two thousand students will be offered seamlessly integrated, four year (or
less) diploma/degree programs, with a single admission process.13 Features of the Centre
include: programs which meet demonstrated student and employer demand; student accessibility; quality academic programs that balance theoretical basic and applied skills
13 In fall 2006, there were 2,200 students enrolled in the programs at the University of Guelph-Humber. 50
linked to job opportunities; maximized and efficient use of facilities; innovative use of
technology; career development and industry partnerships” (Mission Statement, CAET).
The key to curriculum development at the new University of Guelph-Humber, as finally decided upon by the Curriculum Development Task Force and the senior
administration, was to be the blend of Generic Employability Skills that had been
embedded in the curriculum of programs at the CAATs following the Vision 2000 report
in the early 1990s, and the University of Guelph’s Learning Objectives that guide course
outline development at the university. Added to this mix were the Base Competencies
and Skills that emerged from the research of sociology professor, Dr. Fred Evers and his
colleagues (1998), who carried out studies on the skills and competencies that university
students need to gain and sustain employment. The Task Force decided that each course
developed for the University of Guelph-Humber was to be new (not one already in
existence at either institution) and demonstrated a balance of Generic Employability
Skills, the university’s Learning Objectives and, and Evers et al (1998) Base
Competencies and Skills.
The Generic Employability Skills that guide college curriculum include the
following: personal skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills, thinking skills,
mathematical and computer application skills.14 The University of Guelph’s Learning
Objectives include literacy, numeracy, sense of global development, global
understanding, moral maturity, aesthetic maturity, understanding of forms of enquiry,
depth and breadth of understanding, independence of thought, and a love of learning.15
The Base Competencies and Skills include managing self (learning, personal
14 Humber’s Generic Employability Skills, www.humber.ca 15 University of Guelph’s Learning Objectives, www.uoguelph.ca 51
organization/time management, personal strengths, problem solving), communicating
(writing, listening, oral communication, interpersonal), managing people and tasks, and mobilizing innovation and change (Evers, et al, 1998).
During the spring of 2000, the first members of the Curriculum Development
Task Force and the Joint Programs Committee settled on a final list of joint programs for
curriculum development - Applied Gerontology, Business, Computing Co-op, Early
Childhood, Family and Community Social Services, Justice Studies, and Media Studies.
Vicki Smith, who was then the Manager of Academic Services for the University of
Guelph-Humber,16 said it was important to finally settle on the selection of programs to
offer in the collaboration because the design of the new building was dependent on the
curriculum needs. For example, the Media Studies program needed a broadcast studio
and a newsroom, the Business program needed a gallery to showcase student led project
work, and the computing program needed an anechoic chamber for experimenting in
wireless technology. She recalled that the program selection process stipulated that no programs were to directly compete with any existing programs at Humber or the
University of Guelph (Smith, interview, November 15, 2006).
It was agreed upon and approved by both institutions that the credentials earned by students after four years of study would be the following baccalaureate degrees from the University of Guelph, and the following diplomas from Humber College: Applied
Gerontology – Bachelor of Applied Science (Gerontology) and Diploma in Gerontology;
Business – Bachelor of Business Administration and Diploma in Business
Administration; Computing – Bachelor of Applied Computing and Diploma in Wireless and Telecommunications Technology; Early Childhood – Bachelor of Applied Arts
16 Vicki Smith would later become the program head of the Bachelor of Business Administration program. 52
(Early Childhood Services) and Diploma in Early Childhood Education; Family and
Community Social Services – Bachelor of Applied Arts (Family and Community Social
Services) and Social Service Worker Diploma; Justice Studies – Bachelor of Applied
Arts (Justice Studies) and Diploma in Police Foundations; Media Studies – Bachelor of
Applied Arts (Media Studies) and Diploma in Journalism or Public Relations
(Nightingale, 4).17
Each of these programs at the university had a corresponding diploma program at
Humber so it was not difficult for the Executive Committee to identify interested program developers from each side. There were, however, two exceptions – Media
Studies and Applied Gerontology. In the case of Media Studies, Humber’s developers
(this writer and her dean) initially decided to offer two streams of applied study in the program – journalism and public relations.18 At the end of a common year of study, the
plan was for students to specialize in either journalism or public relations. The problem
was that there was no corresponding communications studies program at the University
of Guelph. Instead the developers from Guelph came from the English and other
departments and they might not have had any background in media/communications.
Eventually a compromise solution was agreed upon between the two institutions -- the
people with appropriate credentials and knowledge were consulted to develop such
courses as Contemporary Narrative, Subcultures and Mainstream Media,
17 A Senior Policy Advisor at the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in 2001, Elka Walsh, pointed out that the credentials were jointly decided upon by the University of Guelph and Humber College. The two institutions did not need to get the Ministry’s approval as the degrees would be granted from the University of Guelph and the diplomas from Humber College. They would only need approval for funding the new programs. “Technically, the University of Guelph-Humber is the University of Guelph at Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning” (Walsh, email correspondence, November 13, 2006).
18 A third stream in Image Arts was added in 2004. 53
Communication Technology and Culture, and Perception, Power and the Media. The
applied courses were adapted from Humber’s Journalism and Public Relations programs
and academically bolstered with theoretical constructs.
Gerontology was a more complicated problem. The University of Guelph offers
an undergraduate degree program in Gerontology in its department of Family Relations
and Applied Nutrition. However, Humber did not have a corresponding diploma program
in Gerontology. Instead it offered an Ontario Graduate Certificate program in
gerontology aimed specifically at nursing graduates.19 Humber then made a decision to develop an undergraduate diploma program in gerontology, but the entire venture was dropped in the spring of 2003 when there were approximately 12 applicants to the
Guelph-Humber program that was hoping to attract about 40 students (Smith, interview,
November 15, 2006).
In a document dated February 6, 2001 and entitled Course Curriculum
Development Guidelines, the Curriculum Development Task Force, with permanent members now from both institutions, was officially mandated with developing courses
for four years of study in each program. The development of the curricula for the
programs was to be guided by specific goals including that each was to “{be} high
quality applied diploma/degree programs, with sound academic foundation, geared to the
labour force needs of Ontario in the 21st Century. Provide students with the generic and specific knowledge and skills required for particular occupations and professions, as well
as preparation for being informed and responsible citizens. {And}Prepare students for entry to graduate programs” (Course Curriculum Development Guidelines, 6). Each
19 Ontario Graduate Certificate programs are specifically tailored for university graduates. Most were developed in the 1980s and 1990s to serve university graduates seeking skills training for the workforce. 54
program was to have a workplace component and was to be delivered in a variety of
traditional and new educational delivery modes. The delivery was generally to be five
courses per semester, each worth 0.5 credits, leading to a total of 20 credits upon
graduation. In order to ensure that each course had a blend of applied and theoretical
learning, the guidelines specified that “the content, skill development, delivery mode, and where applicable, interdisciplinary nature of each course must be examined within the context of the overall program to ensure that it covers desired program objectives. This analysis can be accomplished by examining the course in the context of the other courses within the program. A matrix which cross-tabulates courses by content and skill categories can be used to facilitate this analysis” (Ibid., 3). That is precisely how the
program and course development proceeded - by using a matrix to show where in the
program generic employability skills, the university’s learning objectives and base
competencies were introduced, reinforced and applied.
General Breadth Electives
In the winter/spring of 2001, the Curriculum Development Task Force met not
only to approve curriculum being developed by the joint program teams, but also to plan
what should be developed for breadth courses. In a paper entitled Humber-Guelph
Integrated Programs: Working Assumptions, the Vice-provost academic, Michael
Nightingale, wrote that in the university’s applied programs breadth requirements are met
through a series of restricted and free electives. This was the expectation for the
University of Guelph-Humber programs as well. “It is envisaged the liberal education
requirement will be achieved by ensuring four breadth courses are included in the 55
required courses of each program, and that students will also be required to take an
additional four free electives” (Nightingale, 3). From winter 2001 through 2002, a subcommittee of the Curriculum Development Task Force (later called the Curriculum
Development Committee) met regularly to develop a philosophy for breadth courses in these joint programs and make decisions on practical matters such as the number of free electives to be offered, the class sizes, etc. In a paper developed by Humber’s Associate
Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Clive Cockerton, and the subcommittee, it was recognized that Humber and the University of Guelph must work closely together to
“develop curriculum in the joint programs that is geared to the marketplace while being academically rigorous” (Cockerton, 1). The courses would be developed and reviewed by discipline specialists, and reviewed by vocational faculty, and students. They were to be organized into breadth categories of Arts and Literature, Social Sciences and the
Humanities, Natural Sciences and Technology, and Interdisciplinary/Complementary breadth, and offer a range of options at a “variety of levels, including lower level and upper level university instruction” (Ibid, 1). The subcommittee recommended that development of the breadth offerings for the University of Guelph-Humber be guided by five goals: lifelong learning, self-knowledge, global perspectives, citizenship, and relevance. Because these courses were to be part of programs that led to a Humber diploma as well as a University of Guelph degree, it was important that generic skills be a major component of the courses. “All breadth courses explicitly provide learners with opportunities to develop the fundamental skills (literacy, numeracy, interpersonal, computer, and thinking) necessary to operate in a challenging and changing 56
environment…Moreover, skill sets are integrated and with the essential knowledge base
provided by the discipline” (Ibid, 3).
Interestingly, it was Humber which developed the first breadth courses for the new Guelph-Humber programs. Cockerton said that universities tend to be slow in developing curriculum. “The colleges, by their very nature, have to develop curriculum quickly to address vocational and breadth requirements. Technology changes quickly, economic and political forces that students need to be prepared for happen quickly, and so we have learned to develop curriculum at a greater speed than the universities typically do” (Cockerton, interview, November 23, 2006). Cockerton also said that his counterparts at the University of Guelph initially thought that they could offer the university’s existing courses as breadth courses for the joint programs. However, that did not fulfill the mandate of offering all new courses for Guelph-Humber that addressed
Humber’s generic employability skills, the university’s learning objectives and base competencies. “Some of the Guelph professors resisted developing new breadth courses when they had – as they saw it - all these perfectly good courses that they already offered at the university. I think many thought the combination of the skills and learning objectives was just being dictated from {President Mordechai}Rozanski. It was hard getting that concept across at first” (Cockerton, Ibid.). Cockerton recalled that one of the
University of Guelph members of the Curriculum Development Task Force brought forward a 20th Century History course for approval and that the committee rejected it
partly because it did not meet the criteria for the blend of theoretical and practical
learning. However, the clock was ticking and as it took several months to move new
courses through the approval bodies at both institutions, particularly at the University of 57
Guelph, the Curriculum team asked Cockerton to bring forward breadth electives that
would be developed by him and other faculty from Humber’s Liberal Arts and Sciences
division. “Over several months we brought forward courses such as Money, Markets and
Democracy, City Life, the Sociology of Consumption, and Human Security and World
Disorder.” Over the next few years, the breadth offerings ended up being developed fairly evenly between the two institutions and the students were given a broad range of courses to choose from. During this period, Cockerton recalled, “there was a lot of good work done” (Cockerton, Ibid.).
Moving Forward
In the winter of 2001, the University of Guelph’s president, Mordechai Rozanski,
wrote to a Senior Policy Analyst at the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
seeking funding approval for the three programs that were to be the first program
offerings at the University of Guelph-Humber when it was to open its doors to students in
September 2002. The programs and their curriculum plans had been approved by all the
approval bodies at both institutions.20 The first programs to receive approval for funding
were a Bachelor of Applied Computing, Bachelor of Applied Arts (Media Studies), and a
Bachelor of Business Administration. In his letter to the Ministry, Rozanski, pointed out
the uniqueness of these programs and the joint venture. “These new programs have been
specifically designed to provide a new option in higher education – the integration of an
honours degree with a post-secondary diploma within four years of study…All the
20 At the University of Guelph the programs were approved first by the Curriculum Development Committee, then by the Joint Programs Committee, then by the Calendar Review Committee, then by the Board of Undergraduate Studies, and finally the Senate. The process is different at Humber. Academic Council was informed of the programs as were academic administrators at the Academic Operations Committee. It was the Board of Governors that approved the programs. 58
program courses will be at the university level, but will be sufficiently applied to meet the
requirements of Humber’s already approved post-secondary diplomas” (Rozanski, 2001).
The Ministry subsequently approved the programs in time for recruitment to take place to
find the first cohort of students for the September 2002 start.
Another task was to find appropriate faculty for the joint programs. As Vice-
provost Nightingale wrote in the Working Assumptions document, “The roles of faculty
in colleges and universities are different. In colleges faculty focus on teaching, whereas
university faculty’s role also embraces research. The credentials required for college
faculty are typically a postgraduate degree and some professional experience…A doctoral
qualification is normally a requirement for a faculty position in a university, however,
many university faculty do not have professional experience outside academia”
(Nightingale, 8). It was expected that the faculty involved in developing the programs
would be among the first to teach in them, augmented by a search among existing faculty
at the two institutions for those with appropriate qualifications and the establishment of a five-year recruitment plan. Both Humber and the University of Guelph had separate union contracts for faculty and it was decided in 2001 that faculty would be appointed to
Guelph-Humber under their respective contracts and that roughly half would come from
each institution.21 The hiring of faculty was done by deans from both institutions. “…the
deans at both ends were very conscious of the need to select faculty who would be able to
meet the challenges – practitioners who, if they didn’t have the advanced credentials were
‘smart and knowledgeable’ and would be respected by the students. {On the Guelph side,
21 Although this meant that faculty appointed from the University of Guelph would receive a higher rate of pay than those from the college, it has not created any labour disputes. The reason is that Humber offsets the pay difference through a decrease in workload for its employees teaching at the University of Guelph- Humber. 59
they hired} academics who had some professional experience or plenty of practice teaching students in professional programs” (Nightingale, email correspondence,
November 7, 2006).
The manager of Academic Services, Vicki Smith, recalled that the faculty from
Humber were the most enthusiastic and that generally they were excellent instructors, perhaps because in the CAAT system the professors focus on teaching, while teaching is
something university professors have as part of their duties along with research work. She
found there was less enthusiasm from the University of Guelph faculty. “Because of our
physical location {in Toronto on the Humber Campus}, it wasn’t as much of a reality to
them. It was more ‘that project in Toronto’. It was more of an unknown”. To entice them
to participate as faculty in the joint programs, Michael Nightingale introduced a taxi
service to drive the staff between the University of Guelph campus and Humber’s
campus. “That made the Guelph faculty less worried about travel. Many of the Guelph
faculty who were with us from day one continued to come back to teach every year. Now
they are much more enthusiastic than they were initially” (Smith, interview, November
15, 2006).
Marketing and Student Recruitment
By June 2001, the Vice-provost of the University of Guelph-Humber, Michael
Nightingale, set his sights on finding students for the joint programs that were to begin
operations in fall 2002. A Joint Guelph-Humber Marketing, Recruiting and
Communications Sub-Committee was developed and met to discuss the findings of
research interviews that had been held that spring among several groups of high school 60 students. These were done by marketing employees of both the University of Guelph and
Humber to obtain feedback on the overall concept of blended programs between a university and a college. They discovered that “students like the fast track approach and the financial benefits of combining 5 years of post-secondary into 4. {However} students had trouble grasping the college university degree/diploma concept. {And} students were afraid the first class would be guinea pigs in a new educational concept” (Marketing,
Recruiting and Communications Sub-Committee, May 3, 2001). The goal was to recruit between 1,000 – 2,000 applicants to yield 200 qualified students for full-time studies in
September 2002. The first intake had to be limited to 200 students because the new building for the University of Guelph-Humber would not be constructed until the spring/summer of 2003. The first students were to have their first year classes in a small, portable building behind Humber’s main structure at the north campus.
The Sub-Committee identified a target audience for the first cohort to be Greater
Toronto Area (GTA) based university-bound high school graduates who wanted to stay in the GTA. The Sub-Committee wanted to get information about the University of Guelph-
Humber to those who had an influence on those students – school officials, employers, media, and Humber and Guelph faculty, staff and alumni. The key recruitment messages were the following: “In only four years of study, you can obtain an honours university degree and an applied college diploma. Guelph-Humber is located in the GTA…with easy access to major highways. The University of Guelph and Humber College are two of
Canada’s most reputable post-secondary institutions. Pursue a specialized degree that blends the theoretical education of a university with the applied knowledge of a college.
Guelph-Humber programs are university-level programs. Guelph-Humber programs are 61
developed with direct input from employers and industry” (Guelph-Humber Marketing,
Recruiting and Communications Sub-Committee, June 25, 2001).
Academic Manager, Vicki Smith, said a recruitment expert was hired on contract
from “the University of Guelph’s well-oiled recruitment machine and we were able to use
their expertise.” At this time (summer/fall 2001), much of the success of the joint project was dependent on people. While it was important to hire those with expertise in
marketing and recruitment, “another challenge was gaining the trust and goodwill of staff
at Humber and Guelph because initially it was all built on relationships. I credit Michael
(Nightingale) with that. He was excellent at building a team, being inclusive, and gaining
people’s trust and goodwill” (Smith, interview, November 15, 2006). Marketing and
recruitment moved into full swing in the fall of 2001 with brochures answering
Frequently Asked Questions and an official “view book” (a small university calendar
highlighting programs, tuition costs, availability of scholarships, etc.) being published. In
addition, a University of Guelph-Humber website was developed and made operational.
The Vice-provost (academic), the Academic Manager and program heads for the three
initial programs (Business, Computing Co-op, and Media Studies) attended the Ontario
University Fair in September in which they shared a booth with the University of
Guelph.22 Michael Nightingale said his biggest challenge was “whether parents and high
school teachers would be supportive of taking the risk of a third option” in higher
education in Ontario (Nightingale, email correspondence, November 7, 2006). The
22 The Ontario University Fair is held annually at a downtown Toronto location and houses tables and booths for each of the province’s universities to display brochures, posters and calendars to encourage students to apply for entrance. University recruitment officers and some faculty are usually on hand to answer questions from prospective students and parents. The University of Guelph-Humber, being an appendage of the University of Guelph, shares space with that institution. 62
combined efforts were successful as 925 students applied for the programs for fall 2002
and 214 enrolled – 110 in Business, 39 in Computing Co-op, and 65 in Media Studies.
Preparing for the First Cohort of Students
While the academic team at the University of Guelph-Humber was busy
recruiting students for fall 2002, others were equally busy preparing in other ways. The
Guelph-Humber Executive Committee was developing the financial plans for start-up.
One matter was clear, there was not enough money for everything the Committee wanted to do. They prepared submissions for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities with a few scenarios for “borrowing” or receiving advanced funds to cover the first few years of operation (Guelph-Humber Executive Steering Committee minutes, May 2,
2001). When the final plans for the building were developed, the leaders in this joint venture, after seeing the square footage that could be afforded, made a decision not to offer separate services for students (i.e. athletics, food, library services, counseling, and others) but to purchase these services from what existed at Humber. “Funding was a challenge because it is never enough…That’s why we went with the service agreement with Humber because that would stretch our money further…We could maximize the learning/teaching side of the Guelph-Humber building that way” (Smith, interview,
November 15, 2006).
Other matters were being resolved, also, such as the development of distance
learning (to be developed through the University of Guelph’s existing office of distance
learning using its platform for online delivery of courses), library issues such as arranging
for books to be transferred daily from the university’s facility in Guelph to Humber’s 63
library, start and end dates of semesters as these were different at the two institutions,
student orientation plans, admission requirements and admission of foreign students,
grading systems, student transfer into Guelph-Humber programs, transfer between
programs, and other such issues (Guelph-Humber Executive Committee, Academic
Issues, September 18, 2001). In addition, the leaders and others were making final plans
for the actual physical building to house the University of Guelph-Humber starting in fall
2003.
Doors open to students
In September 2002, 214 full-time students began studies in the three pilot
programs: Bachelor of Business Administration, Bachelor of Applied Computing, and
Bachelor of Applied Arts (Media Studies). The students physically had their classes in a tiny building situated in the middle of one of Humber’s parking lots behind its main structure. The building had two learning spaces – a classroom that could accommodate approximately 60 students and a computer laboratory for about 30 students. Physical space was a problem and the academic manager had to schedule classes back-to-back from early in the morning until late evening daily. It was difficult because the Vice- provost academic, Michael Nightingale, wanted them to have the experience of other
Ontario university students but what existed for them was not a university campus but a temporary structure on a college campus. The challenge was to try to give the students a university experience in spite of the constraints.
However, the size of the cohort and the space restrictions also had some positive
results: “We were able to foster a real sense of community. Not only did we have fun 64
student events, but we also involved them in policy decisions and processes. They had a
lot of influence on the way things developed at Guelph-Humber in terms of student
services and the like. Our first graduates told us they really loved that, that they really felt
they were a part of the institution much more so than they would have been at somewhere
like York University or the University of Toronto” (Smith, interview, November 15,
2006). Students had easy access to their faculty and the staff because the first year of
operation was so small and the bureaucracy that typically exists at an institution of higher
learning was simply not there.
The first year of operation went well and the students reported that they were
generally satisfied. In a survey of Guelph-Humber students known as the Freshman
Integration and Tracking System (FIT – System) carried out in fall 2002 more than 95%
of students responded to, among other topics, questions about their background, levels of
education, amount of time spent working while attending school, their student needs in
regard to extra help with mathematics and writing, and general satisfaction with
professors and staff.23 To the question: The faculty in my program are excellent teachers,
79.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 20% were neutral. To the question: So far, staff
have been friendly and welcoming, 92.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 5.6% were
neutral. The following year when student numbers had literally quadrupled and students
were in the new University of Guelph-Humber building, the responses to those questions
were lower – 73.2% agreed or strongly agreed that faculty in their programs were
23 See the Freshman Integration and Tracking System website at www.fit-system.humber.ca. The purpose of the survey as reported on the website, is to “increase student retention and success; understand the college (in this case University of Guelph-Humber) specific determinants of first-term student success and retention; and promote the efficient and effective use of…resources”.
65
excellent teachers (22% were neutral); and 86.1% agreed or strongly agreed that staff had
been friendly and welcoming (11.7% were neutral). It was clear from the FIT – System
survey of fall 2002 that the very first students of the University of Guelph-Humber were there because of the potential for finding employment upon graduation. 82.8% responded that the job potential after graduation was quite important or very important, and 92.3%
agreed or strongly agreed that it was important to graduate with a diploma/degree.
Another interesting statistic from the survey was that more than 65% of the students were
working 10 hours or more per week while attending full-time studies.
The student cohort that entered the University of Guelph-Humber in fall 2002 and
attended classes in the little portable close to the Humber River ravine had an experience
that few could hope to emulate. They were the first students in a bold experiment in
higher education in Ontario that blended university theoretical learning with the practical
skills training of the college system. The students were treated as special, and the open
door policy of the Vice-provost academic meant they could visit and talk to the
administrators at will. As Academic Manager Vicki Smith recalls, “There just weren’t
any layers of bureaucracy. It was a lovely experience for all of us” (Smith, interview,
November 15, 2006). 66
IV. The University of Guelph-Humber Takes Shape:
A New Building for a New Initiative in Higher Learning
On September 8, 2003, students began attending classes in the University of
Guelph-Humber’s new building erected on a former parking lot on the southern portion of Humber’s north campus. According to a Humber marketing publication, Humber
Today, this was a state-of-the-art facility with 22 classrooms and specialized learning laboratories, a second floor devoted to a 164 seat learning commons and 200 seat internet café, break out rooms, computer classrooms, and a 90-seat math and writing centre
(Humber Marketing and Communications, Fall 2003). One interesting feature of the new building was something known as “the Living Wall” or plant wall biofilter which is four storeys in height and is filled with hundreds of tropical plants that are watered by an intricate system behind the wall. The wall has a practical purpose aside from its aesthetic value as it improves air quality and creates a natural source of indoor fresh air.
Interestingly the concept of a living wall was developed by professors in the University of Guelph’s Biology Department, and the department’s dean worked with the building’s architects on the design. He also helped the University of Guelph to apply for a research grant and once it was approved, they installed the plant wall biofilter (Valens, S., email correspondence, November 20, 2006).
When classes began, the building was not quite ready for occupation. Academic
Manager, Vicki Smith recalled that there were no computer hook-ups, the phones did not work, and the student laboratories were not functional. “Everything was working to a tight timeline. It was very stressful” (Smith, interview, November 15, 2006). The atmosphere that had been so intimate between staff and students the year before had 67
changed with the move to the new building. It was not possible to know people on a first name basis as there were now more than 850 students. Vice-provosts Michael
Nightingale and David Trick, and Manager, Vicki Smith “went on a hiring spree. We brought on a program advisor from Guelph, built a broadcast lab for the Media Studies program, and worked around a mess while the living wall was being built. But, believe it or not, we made great progress. Everything was done in a ‘just-in-time’ way. You might say the building caught up with the curriculum. For example, an art gallery that was to be part of the Business program wasn’t needed until the students entered year three, and it wasn’t built until just before we needed it” (Smith, Ibid.)
Three new programs were added to the three which had begun the year before.
Students began studies in Family and Community Social Services, Justice Studies, and
Early Childhood Services. The three new program heads have distinct memories of start-
up in the fall of 2003. Each of them had worked on the development of curriculum in
their respective program areas from the beginning of the collaboration. Leo Smits, a
Humber professor who had taught in the Social Service Worker diploma program, said
“the level of technology that we had put into the curriculum – the program websites, the
electronic classrooms, etc. was both exciting and overwhelming” (Brophy, et al,
interviews, December 4, 2006). The program heads reported that the numbers were not as
large as they had hoped considering that fall 2003 was the time the double cohort of
secondary school students entered the system. They felt pressure to increase student
numbers for the following academic year. Ron Stansfield, had taught in Humber’s Police
Foundations program for approximately 15 years before the University of Guelph hired
him to be a professor in the Sociology Department, and program head for Guelph- 68
Humber’s Justice Studies program. The people he now reported to at the University of
Guelph made it clear they were not pleased with the initial intake of students into the
Justice Studies program. They had planned for three sections of students and ended up
with two. “I was told that if I couldn’t fill my cohorts in the best year of recruiting, there
was a serious problem” (Brophy, et al, Ibid.). Kathy Brophy, program head of the Early
Childhood Services program, said that at both Guelph and Humber, planners for her
program had decided to start with a small cohort so they could work through the
difficulties that might ensue. “Initially we weren’t sure how many students we would
attract to what really amounted to one of the only degree programs in this field. Degrees
in ECE {Early Childhood Education} are few and far between” (Brophy, et al, Ibid.).
The three program heads who started their new roles in the first days of the
University of Guelph-Humber building agreed that there was much frustration because
classrooms weren’t finished at first, their offices were still being completed, and the
living wall was often leaking water onto the floor of the concourse. However, they did
not let the frustrations dampen their general sense of elation at seeing their years of
planning come to fruition. Although student numbers were not as high as they had
hoped,24 there was nonetheless a sense of enthusiasm. As Stansfield said, “I was very
excited. There was a sense of this being extraordinary. I also felt a special responsibility
to be a bridge between the two institutions having worked at Humber for so long, and
then beginning my new academic career as a Guelph professor at Guelph-Humber”
(Brophy, et al, Ibid.). Leo Smits said he felt pleased and validated by the fact that he had
24 In fall 2003 the Early Childhood Services program had 24 students, Family and Community Social Services had 37, and Justice Studies had 86. The programs that had a second student intake that fall had larger numbers: Business had a total of 429, Computing had a total of 90, and there were about 130 students altogether in the Media Studies program. 69
so much influence in guiding a project that was now a reality since students were actually
on campus. Kathy Brophy agreed and added that the heads of all six programs developed
good working relationships. “All of us who had been working on Guelph-Humber, we
became quite close. I felt a real sense of accomplishment with a group of people I really cared for. It was wonderful, actually” (Brophy, et al, Ibid.).
From a new student’s viewpoint, the building not being ready made the
experience unsettling. Neha Sharma was just 17-years-old when she entered the Bachelor
of Business Administration program in fall 2003. She was one of the first grade 12
secondary school graduates of the double cohort year. She had been attracted to the
University of Guelph-Humber because of the blend of an academic university experience
with college skills training. The idea of receiving both in just four years of study was
appealing. However, Sharma was not sure of what to expect at this brand new institution.
It made her feel less secure that some of the classrooms were still under construction and
that some of her classes were held in the little portable in which the first cohort of
Guelph-Humber students had studied the previous year. She said she felt better when they
finally were able to be taught in the new building. As Sharma pointed out, starting post
secondary studies was frightening enough. “I was so nervous. It was so different than
high school. Also, it was clear the teachers were unsure of what was going on with the
building not being really ready. As students we didn’t know who to go to or who to ask
about what was happening. It was kind of strange” (Sharma, interview, December 8,
2006).
The University of Guelph-Humber held its grand opening on May 21, 2004. In
attendance were the presidents of Humber and the University of Guelph, the two Vice- 70
Provosts of the University of Guelph-Humber, the University of Guelph’s then chancellor, Lincoln Alexander, and Stuart Smith who was chair of Humber’s Board of
Governors. A foundation stone and time capsule were laid at the official opening.
Challenges and Triumphs
As the next few years unfolded, the University of Guelph-Humber struggled with
certain issues and celebrated some successes. Humber’s president said the biggest
triumph was that the project actually came together and was launched. “The success was
the fact that a college and university could actually work together with a totally integrated
curriculum and offer students a new form of applied, but university level, education in
Ontario. We managed to graduate a group of students a year before the province-wide
double cohort class graduated, and we exceeded enrolment targets overall – a big
vindication for those who had dreamed about this from the beginning” (Gordon,
interview December 12, 2006).
Continuing the curriculum development was one of the challenges the new
institution faced. It was necessary for the Curriculum Development Committee to ensure
that all four years of courses were developed for each program and approved by the
various committees at both institutions. While in the earlier years, developers from both
sides could envision the concept of joining two divergent cultures of postsecondary
education and designed courses for lower level instruction of years one and two,
designing courses for actual implementation and for senior levels of programs was
another matter. Ann Dean, Humber’s Director of Development, said “the tension came
from a clash of two distinct cultures: the university one with a disciplines-based 71
pedagogy based on tradition mixed with new research, and the college one with an
outcomes-based pedagogy that considered labour market needs. The university
developers had never had to do that before and the college developers had never had to
consider increasing levels of scholarship as the program of study progressed. Sometimes
it was difficult for people to adjust the styles they were used to” (Dean, interview,
December 15, 2006). Some of the people on the Curriculum Development Committee
from Humber’s side thought there was insufficient attention paid to the content needed
for the field of practice. Similarly, some of the university developers felt there were gaps
occurring when they perceived they couldn’t address all of the elements from the
discipline. “The fear from that side was that we may be creating terminal degrees if there
wasn’t enough rigour and scholarship in the courses; that these programs may be
adequate for the workforce, but would they lead to post graduate studies? That was the
question” (Dean, Ibid).
The programs that had all four years of curriculum developed first were those
where there was affinity between the university and Humber. Early Childhood Studies,
Family and Community Social Services, Computing Co-op and Justice Studies were programs that had similar programs in existence at both Humber and Guelph. As a result, program developers from both institutions found they worked well together. The programs that took longest to develop and which created the most debate at the
Curriculum Development Committee meetings were Business and Media Studies. These programs did not have a good match on both sides and it was more difficult to find people at both institutions who could agree on what should be included in the courses
under development. While Humber had a long and successful history with its Journalism 72
and Public Relations programs, there was nothing similar being offered at the University
of Guelph. There was nothing like a Communications or Mass Media program, and so
course developers from Guelph came from a variety of departments, and were not
necessarily professors who understood the needs of the media workplace. The Media
Studies program had a need for specialized learning labs such as a broadcast studio and a
newspaper/magazine newsroom. The Guelph professors had never had to deal with
anything like that before and it was a difficult adjustment. “Sometimes the developers
just couldn’t see the ‘big picture’ of the partnership and felt as if they had landed in an
arranged marriage” (Dean, interview, December 15, 2006).
At times the committee meetings grew heated and led Humber’s Associate Dean
of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Clive Cockerton, to question whether Humber would have
been better off ceding the issue of granting college diplomas along with the baccalaureate
designations. “Why did we {on Humber’s side} have to insist on granting our diplomas along with the university degrees? It would have been much easier and we could have avoided many a battle at those meetings if we hadn’t been so picky about trying to meet
every single program outcome of our diplomas. What did it matter? After people get a
master’s degree, they don’t go around saying, ‘and I also have a B.A.’” (Cockerton, interview, November 23, 2006). But most of the other members of the committee representing Humber disagreed with that notion. Program Head of the Family and
Community Social Services program, Leo Smits said, “If all we were offering was a degree then this collaboration wouldn’t have been special. It would have been ‘the
University of Guelph at Humber’ and it would have meant that the colleges had given in 73
to the more powerful universities as we had always done in Ontario” (Brophy, et al,
interviews, December 4, 2006).
Another challenge for the University of Guelph-Humber in its initial years was
the lack of full-time faculty. Only the program heads have been full-time and dedicated
solely to the institution. They came from both Humber and the University of Guelph and
their roles have been onerous. The job of program head was different than anything that
existed at Humber or the University of Guelph. The program heads had much more
responsibility than their counterparts at Humber who worked as program coordinators.25
From the beginning the program heads have been the only full-time faculty members teaching in their programs. They cited this as a weakness at the University of Guelph-
Humber and noted that in year five of full-time operations, it was time for a long-term commitment to their programs of faculty from both institutions.
Leo Smits of the Family, Community and Social Services program said that they should be updating and adjusting program curricula “but we don’t have faculty to meet with. Our jobs are so overwhelming that we are like herders of cats” (Brophy, et al,
Ibid.). The problem is that the University of Guelph-Humber has not yet become financially able to support full-time faculty for the programs. Ron Stansfield, program head of Justice Studies, noted that all the people who teach in their programs work on contracts and change every year. He said students find this annoying because part-time contract employees don’t have the same commitment to the programs as full-time faculty,
25 The college program coordinators taught classes, planned student timetables, found part-time faculty, counseled students, and consulted with program advisory committee members who represented the industry for which they were training students to work after graduation. Generally they had other full-time faculty members in their programs to help with some of the duties. Program heads at Guelph-Humber did all of this plus helped the Vice-provosts develop institutional policies, dealt with cases of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, found student placements and helped graduates obtain employment, among other duties. They had no one else to help them.
74
and they often leave the building after teaching classes meaning they aren’t physically
available to meet with students. “Our faculty don’t have allegiance to Guelph-Humber,
generally. It means the program heads handle everything – letters of reference, student
placements, you name it. In my case, I have over 500 students. It’s too much all on my
own” (Brophy, et al, Ibid.). However, his criticisms do not extend to the entire part-time faculty. Stansfield made a point of noting that some have been extremely committed to
Guelph-Humber, and really believe in the concept of a blended education. One benefit of
the current situation is that the program heads have great camaraderie among themselves
and count on each other for help and support. As Stansfield said, “We have been an
extraordinary team. It has actually been a wonderful working experience” (Brophy, et al,
Ibid.).
One of the most obvious successes at the University of Guelph-Humber has been
in Stansfield’s program, the Bachelor of Applied Science in Justice Studies26 The
program was popular with students looking for careers in policing, but one of the most
popular aspects was a part-time studies program developed for working police officers to
upgrade their credentials to university degrees. Many police in Ontario held a two-year
college diploma, and increasingly it was becoming apparent that their employers wanted
university degrees for members of their forces, especially if they were to be promoted to
senior ranks. The University of Guelph-Humber embarked on a partnership along with
Humber to help Police Services in the province upgrade their credentials.
26 In 2003, the University of Guelph-Humber sought and received a different credential designation for the Early Childhood Services, the Family, Community and Social Services, and the Justice Studies programs to make them Bachelor of Applied Science degree programs instead of their original designation as Bachelor of Arts. The reason was that the designation made more sense in terms of the programs’ content, and because the level of funding was higher for the Bachelor of Applied Science designation. 75
The way the program works is that police who have a two-year college diploma in
policing and graduated from a program with a high affinity to the courses offered in the
Justice Studies program can receive some credits for those courses. Depending on their
work experience and community work, they may receive some Prior Learning
Assessment and Recognition credits toward the Guelph-Humber degree, also. Through a
combination of online study and flexible delivery of courses (weekend courses), students
can complete their Bachelor of Applied Science in Justice Studies degree in two years of non-stop study (Brophy, et al, Ibid.).27 As of the 2006-2007 academic year approximately
280 students are enrolled in the Justice Studies part-time program for working police.
The University of Guelph-Humber’s Academic Manager, Vicki Smith, became the program head of the Bachelor of Business Administration program in 2004. She said that there have been many accomplishments at the institution that have made it a
“resounding success” (Smith, interview, November 15, 2006). In 2001, she helped recruit students at the University Fair in which universities compete to attract students. At that time, it was difficult to get people, especially parents of students, to understand the concept of the University of Guelph-Humber. However, by fall 2006, she said the university had clearly established an identity at the University Fair and it was not necessary to describe the blended institution. Smith was also especially proud of the fact that the first cohort of Business students graduated in spring 2006.28 She said that by the
time the Business students graduated, over 50 per cent had employment offers, many of these having come from their mandatory work placements. Employers submitted reports
27 If police do not have a college diploma, Humber has similar arrangements to allow them to gain the Police Foundations diploma part-time. 28 Students from Media Studies and Business were among the first graduating class in spring 2006. Computing Co-op students who had begun studies with these students in fall 2002 had to complete their co- op term which ran over the summer of 2006 before they can officially graduate in the spring of 2007. 76
to Smith after students completed their placements. She said the employer comments
were mainly laudatory saying “your students can ‘do’ as well as ‘think’. To be fair, employers probably didn’t know what to expect from the University of Guelph-Humber.
They didn’t know us; they didn’t know what business students would be able to do, or what tasks they could take on. It turned out to be a real bonus for them – students who possessed applied skills as well as critical thinking skills” (Smith, Ibid.).
The current Vice-provost of Guelph-Humber, John Walsh, said his staff has
started collecting research on graduates to see if they are obtaining employment, and just
as importantly, being accepted into graduate studies at other universities. He said there
was no reason that students should not be accepted into master degree programs as their
undergraduate credential is an honours baccalaureate from the University of Guelph, with
the added benefit of a diploma from Humber. “Anecdotally, I hear they are getting pretty
good jobs to begin their working careers, but we don’t have the data yet to substantiate
that” (Walsh, J., interview, December 15, 2006). From one student’s perspective, the
experience at the University of Guelph-Humber has generally been a positive one. Neha
Sharma who will graduate from the Business program in spring 2007, said although the
beginning of her postsecondary studies with Guelph-Humber was unsettling because the
building was still under construction, overall her experience has been good. “I got a
pretty good blend of academic work mixed with practical experience. There have been
lots of projects and essays, and a great deal of group work. In the Entrepreneurial course,
we had to actually set up a business with a proper business plan, start up financing and all
that. That was great. I also experienced the best teacher of my life in my third year here.
This prof had an M.B.A. and she was a successful business woman who came from the 77
world of work to teach us. She had us do group work with five activities in every class
that taught us business negotiating skills. We learned through play-acting and
simulations. It was just fabulous” (Sharma, interview, December 8, 2006). Although
Sharma had some criticisms about scheduling, the lack of large lecture halls, and an
online course she did not like, generally she was happy with the education she received.
“Overall, I love being here; I’m going to miss it for sure” (Sharma, Ibid.).
Looking Ahead
In the fall of 2005, Dr. John Walsh from the University of Guelph29 became the
new Vice-provost of the University of Guelph-Humber replacing both Michael
Nightingale and David Trick. He said his operational plans in the short term include
completing construction of the fourth floor of the Guelph-Humber building so the
institution can grow. The plan is to add seven classrooms (including a tiered lecture hall
for 100 students) and two seminar rooms to create approximately 300 more seats.
Another goal for Walsh is to put the University of Guelph-Humber “onto a sound
financial footing” and to increase student numbers to about 3,000 by the 2009-2010
academic year (Walsh, J., interview, December 15, 2006). Another of Walsh’s plans is to
increase both undergraduate programming and to add postgraduate studies. Two
postgraduate programs began operating in the fall of 2006. Both are technically
University of Guelph master’s degree programs and are not twinned with a Humber
counterpart. A Master of Fine Arts program in Creative Writing does have some
29 John Walsh had been chair of the School of Hospitality at the University of Guelph in which the business programming was housed. He was instrumental in developing the Bachelor of Business Administration program from the Guelph side and was the administrator responsible for the human service programs at the University of Guelph-Humber (Family and Community Social Services, Justice Studies, and Early Childhood Services). 78 connection to Humber, however. Students who already hold an undergraduate degree and graduate from Humber’s Creative Writing Correspondence program are eligible for some advanced standing in the MFA program. This program began in 2006 with 16 students
(Phippen, email correspondence, December 12, 2006). Another Master’s level program, a
Master of Arts in Leadership, has one cohort of students through the University of
Guelph-Humber as of 2006. However, this is an online program with three one-week residency requirements at the beginning, middle and end of the course of study. Students may now do their residency at the University of Guelph-Humber instead of at the Guelph campus (Chomyn, interview, December 20, 2006).
A new undergraduate program in Applied Psychology is planned to begin in fall
2007 with an intake of between 100 – 120 students. This program has been developed, like the other undergraduate programs, in partnership between the two institutions. After four years of study graduates will receive a University of Guelph Bachelor of Applied
Science (Psychology) degree and a Humber diploma in General Arts and Sciences. The program has passed through the approval process at Humber and all of the approval bodies at the University of Guelph with the exception of Senate. It is expected to pass through Senate in the winter of 2007 (Walsh, J., interview, December 15, 2006). Another planned undergraduate program slated to begin in fall 2008 with a planned intake of 60 –
65 students is in the area of Health and Fitness/Kinesiology. After four years of study graduates will earn a Bachelor of Applied Science (Fitness/Kinesiology) degree from the
University of Guelph and a diploma in Fitness and Health Promotion from Humber. This program still needs to pass through the approval processes at both institutions. A Master of Business Administration program is also planned and some developmental work has 79
occurred but it is unlikely to start before fall 2008, or perhaps fall 2009 (Phippen, email
correspondence, December 12, 2006). One of the purposes of this program is to provide
graduate business studies for graduates of Guelph-Humber’s Bachelor of Business
Administration program, and Humber’s own baccalaureate degree programs in business
of which there are currently two (Paralegal Studies and Electronic Business), with three
more developed and awaiting ministerial consent at the Ministry of Training, Colleges
and Universities.
In spring 2007 the University of Guelph-Humber will graduate its second cohort
of students in the Media Studies and Bachelor of Business Administration programs. At
the same time, the Family and Community Social Services, Early Childhood Studies,
Justice Studies and Computing Co-op programs will hold convocation ceremonies for their first cohort of graduates. All of the program heads and the Vice-provost are waiting to see if these graduates will go on to careers their undergraduate education has prepared them for, and/or graduate studies. Leo Smits from the Family and Community and Social
Services program is awaiting word on whether the organization that regulates social workers and social service workers in the province, the Ontario College of Social
Workers and Social Service Workers, will recognize his graduates as being social workers. This would enable them to go on to Master of Social Work studies. He said many of them are applying to Ryerson University, the University of Toronto, and the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education for entry into graduate programs. One encouraging development for Smits was to see some of his students accepted for their work placements at agencies such as hospitals and the Children’s Aid Societies “which is not the case with students in Humber’s {Social Service Worker} diploma program” 80
(Brophy, et al, December 4, 2006). Kathy Brophy of the Early Childhood Studies
program is hoping that some of her graduates will be accepted into Teachers’ Colleges at
various universities. That might be difficult because students in this applied program do
not major in one discipline, thus they do not have a clear “teachable” subject matter in
which to specialize as teachers. She believes there is a real need for students and the
community to be educated about what early childhood studies prepares learners to do.
“The fact is, it isn’t daycare. It’s terrible how little early childhood educators are paid.
People need to understand the breadth of our program” (Brophy, et al, Ibid.). Ron
Stansfield of the Justice Studies program is waiting to see if any of his graduates
successfully pass the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and receive admittance into any of Ontario’s law schools. He believes some are applying to Master of Criminology programs at other Ontario universities, as well (Brophy, et al, Ibid.).
In Conclusion
The University of Guelph-Humber has been a unique and bold initiative in the
history of postsecondary education in Ontario. Never before has a college – a member of
the organized and government-managed system of Colleges of Applied Arts and
Technology30 – and a university with its independent structure and governance, joined
30 After the Ontario Legislature passed the Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2001, colleges received some added autonomy from government. As Humber’s president, Robert Gordon said, the changes to the colleges’ charter allowed them more freedom in governance and capital development. It gave their boards, among other measures, more accountability in terms of finance, program approval, and in approving the colleges’ business plans, budgets and annual reports (Gordon, email correspondence, January 3, 2007).
81
together to create a fully-integrated diploma-degree program of study. The presidents of
both Humber and the University of Guelph, and the University of Guelph-Humber’s
Vice-provost believe the concept is a great stride forward in academic choice for Ontario
students. Yet all three men believe it is unlikely to be replicated, at least in the foreseeable future. Guelph University’s Alastair Summerlee said it was unlikely that this type of fully-integrated collaboration will occur again in Ontario. “…I am doubtful because I believe that the fundamental essence of the positive collaboration rests on three things: the unity of view of the two presidents this must/should work; the commitment of the faculty on both sides to treat each other with mutual respect…and the willingness to design every course from scratch” (Summerlee, email correspondence, December 13,
2006). Humber’s president, Robert Gordon, agreed with that view and added that “there has to be a perfect storm of events coming together. In this case the perfect storm was the double cohort of students graduating from high school in the same year” (Gordon, interview, December 12, 2006). Guelph-Humber’s Vice-provost, John Walsh, said that in spite of the evidence of this specific successful collaboration, there is still a great wariness because of the different status of colleges and universities. “One difference is that the colleges are in the CAAT system and the universities are independent and not part of a system - the overarching challenge is the difference in the two cultures” (Walsh,
J., interview, December 15, 2006).
The three academic leaders believe there is still a need for universities and colleges to work together in spite of the fact that the CAATs are now able to offer degree-level programming. Summerlee (Guelph) said the joint diploma-degree is an essential part of the cadre of postsecondary educational offerings in the province which 82
include everything from apprenticeship training through to graduate degrees.
(Summerlee, Ibid.). Gordon (Humber) said this collaboration is different {from the
college degree programs} because all courses have to be acceptable for the Guelph degree. He said that many colleges in the system have opted out of offering degree programs because they are expensive to run and the colleges don’t get university-level funding for them. “Look at Humber, out of close to 18,000 students in every kind of program we offer {including the Guelph-Humber collaboration} only about 1,000 are in our own degrees” (Gordon, Ibid.). Walsh (Guelph-Humber) believes the collaboration will eventually help to break down the traditional barriers between colleges and universities and that there is an absolute need for this special type of option for students.
He noted that after five years of offering classes, there are 2,400 students doing degree
studies in Ontario who were not doing them before. “Many {of these students}are first
generation Canadians and the first members of their families to attend university -- that
makes all the difficulties we may have encountered entirely worthwhile” (Walsh, Ibid.).
Walsh believes Ontario as a jurisdiction is one of the most resistant to
partnerships and articulation agreements between colleges and universities in the world.
He thinks part of the problem is that there are too many publicly-funded universities in
the province (18) all trying to offer the same set of educational programs. “The universities all do everything – everybody wants professional schools, undergraduate studies, graduate degrees and research projects…It’s a vastly expensive way to deliver
the product” (Walsh, Ibid.). He says the University of Guelph-Humber will change as it
grows and develops. He notes that the first few years were filled with great
accomplishments as start-up occurred and now it is time to adjust programming and 83
address weaknesses. “Our academic programs must be of the highest quality and {the
institution} must be operated within a sustainable business plan. You can’t deliver quality if there is no sustainable financing” (Walsh, Ibid.).
Both Walsh and Summerlee foresee a time when the University of Guelph-
Humber offers a larger range of undergraduate programs, graduate studies and even
doctoral programs. Summerlee says doctoral-level offerings would be a challenge but
“…we could take two programs where there is a real strength (at Guelph and Humber)
and make the faculty at Humber associate/adjunct graduate faculty at Guelph so we can
have a new program which is magisteriate and/or doctoral” (Summerlee, Ibid.). Walsh
believes there are many people working in the modern economy who could really benefit
from the research skills that form the basis of doctoral programs. He says the institution will demonstrate that it can have partnerships in undergraduate programs, graduate programs, and in applied Ph.D. programs where research skills are accessible to people who need them. “Right now there is no accessibility for mid-career individuals for Ph.D. level education since in Ontario we tie the delivery of education to time and place”
(Walsh, Ibid.). Walsh believes the best way to offer this is through a mixture of on-line delivery and flexible in-person meetings.
Walsh would also like to entrench international experiences for students into the
curriculum of Guelph-Humber programs. He says it would be remiss not build on the
richness and diversity of the student population. “International exposure combined with
education builds tolerance and respect. These are the ‘big picture’ items that keep me
coming to work every morning -- making a tangible difference to real families, real men 84
and women, given the opportunity to pursue university-level education where they
wouldn’t be before” (Walsh, Ibid.).
So the future looks bright with ambitious goals for the University of Guelph-
Humber – perhaps the boldest venture in the history of postsecondary education in
Ontario. Many would say the collaboration has been successful because there has been a
history from the beginning of goodwill and an eagerness on both sides to work collaboratively. The University of Guelph’s president at the beginning of the venture,
Mordechai Rozanski, said he always believed it would come to fruition. “A fundamental observation is that Guelph’s academic culture valued the linkage between theory and application and the Guelph-Humber program reflected that value. From a practical point of view, it offered distinctiveness and substantial new resources to both institutions. It also leveraged the high reputational stature of both institutions. {What both sides stood to
gain was} distinctiveness, innovation, resources, and the advancement of the public
good” (Rozanski, email correspondence, December 6, 2006).
85
Works Cited
Application for SuperBuild Growth Fund for Postsecondary Education Support, (1999).
Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario (ACAATO), Pathways to Prosperity, Toronto: ACAATO, (2005).
Bill 132, Postsecondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from www.ontla.on.ca/documents/bills/37_Parliament/session
Building and Facilities Committee, Mission Statement of the Centre for Advanced Education and Training, (2006).
Centre for Advanced Education and Training (CAET) Steering Committee, Joint diploma/degree programs - University of Guelph & Humber College, July 19, 1999.
Centre for Advanced Education and Training, Course Curriculum Development Guidelines, February 6, 2001.
Canada Heirloom Series, Adelaide Hoodless, Visionary Social Reformer 1857 – 1910. Retrieved August 15, 2006 from http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/250- 251.htm
Canadian Encyclopedia, The University of Guelph. Retrieved August 1, 2006 from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Params=A1ARTA000825
Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials, Postsecondary Education in Ontario. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from http://www.cicic.ca/en/page.aspx?sortcode=2.16.23.27.28
Cockerton, C., Breadth Electives Overview, (2002).
Colbert, J. A., The Achievement and Challenge: University of Guelph 1964 – 1989, Guelph: University of Guelph. (1989).
Craig, G., Upper Canada: The Formative Years – 1784 – 1841. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, (1968).
Cunningham, D., Bill 147, Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2001, Government of Ontario, (2001). Retrieved August 15, 2006 from www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/37_parl/session2/L075A
86
Cunningham, D., Increasing Degree Opportunities for Ontarians – A Consultation Paper, Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, (2000). Retrieved September 18, 2006 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/discussi/degree/degree.html
Cunningham, D., Letter of approval for SuperBuild funding to Dr. Robert Gordon, President, Humber College, and Dr. Mordechai Rozanski, President, University of Guelph. (February 21, 2000).
Curriculum Development Committee of the University of Guelph-Humber, Knowledge Skills and Values, (2000).
Decock, H. & Greene, I., The York University – Seneca College Partnership in Context, Paper presented to the 1998 Annual Conference of the Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Oct. 18 – 20, 1998.
Dennison, J. A. & Gallagher, P., Canada’s Community Colleges: A Critical Analysis, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, (1986).
Dennison, J. (ed.), Challenge and Opportunity: Canada’s Community Colleges at the Crossroads, Vancouver: UBC Press, (1996).
Diamond, R.M., ed., Field Guide to Academic Leadership: A Publication of the National Academy for Academic Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (2002).
Eastman, J. & Lang, D., Mergers in Higher Education: Lessons from Theory and Experience, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, (2001).
Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M., On change: En route to transformation. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, (1998).
Eckel, P., Hill, B., Green, M., & Mallon, W. On Change III: Taking Charge of Change. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, (1999).
Eckel, P. & Adrianna Kezar, Taking the Reins: Institutional Transformation in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, (2003).
Ellis, G., A Case Study of the Diploma-Degree Justice Studies Program at the University of Guelph-Humber. Doctoral Thesis for the Department of Theory and Policy Studies, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: University of Toronto, (2005).
Evers, F., Rush, J. C., & Iris Bedrow, The Bases of Competence: Skills for Lifelong Learning & Employability, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, (1998).
Executive Committee, Centre for Advanced Education and Training (CAET) {an early working name for the University of Guelph-Humber}, Joint Committees for Management and Planning Document, October 2000. 87
Faculty and administrators of Humber College and the University of Guelph involved in the initial planning of the University of Guelph-Humber’s pedagogical approach to higher education and other more practical issues, Signature for the Centre of Advanced Education and Training (CAET) and its programs, (2001).
Faculty and administrators of Humber College and the University of Guelph involved in the initial planning of the University of Guelph-Humber’s pedagogical approach to higher education and other more practical issues, Academic Issues Document, (2001).
Freshman Integrated Tracking System, FIT System Custom Reports – 2003Fall, 2004 Fall. Retrieved November 20, 2006 www.fit-system.humber.ca.
Floyd, D. L., Skolnik, M. L. & Walker, K. P., The Community College Baccalaureate: Emerging Trends and Policy Issues, Sterling,Virginia: Stylus. (2005).
Friedland, M. L., The University of Toronto: A History, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (2002).
Gattinger, F. E., A Century of Challenge: A History of the Ontario Veterinary College, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (1962).
Glenn, T., Partners in Success: The University of Guelph-Humber. Institute of Public Administration Case Study Series, Toronto: IPAC. (2005).
Gordon, R. A., Global Perspectives Required of College Leaders, Leadership Abstracts, World Wide Web Edition, July, 1989. Retrieved July 20, 2006 from www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0789.htm
Gordon, R. A., Letter to Dianne Cunningham, Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, December 14, 1999.
Government of Ontario news release, May 2006. Retrieved August 2, 2006 from http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2006/05/15/c6264.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html
Guelph-Humber Executive Committee Meeting #8 Notes, May 2, 2001.
Guelph-Humber Executive Committee, Academic Issues, September 18, 2001.
Guelph-Humber Marketing, Recruiting and Communications Sub-Committee, Meeting Notes and Communications Updates, May/June 2001.
Harman, G. and V. Lynn Meek, eds. Institutional Amalgamations in Higher Education: Process and Outcome in Five Countries. Armidale: University of New England, (1988).
Harper, T. M., Memo to Humber’s V.P. Academic, Richard Hook, Space Requirements for Guelph-Humber- September 2002, (Aug. 14, 2001). 88
Harper, Michael, Structure for Decision Making for the Humber Guelph Centre for Advanced Education and Training, June 9, 2000.
Hoy, C., Bill Davis: A Biography, Toronto: Methuen. (1985).
Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, Transfer Guide 2005 – 2006 and 2006 – 2007.
Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, Full-Time Postsecondary Calendar 2006 – 2007.
Humber Marketing and Communications, Humber Today, Fall 2003.
Humber Marketing and Communications, University of Guelph-Humber Opening: A Celebration of Innovation (Media Release). May 21, 2004.
Jones, G. A., Higher Education in Canada: Different Systems, Different Perspectives, New York: Garland Publishing Inc. (1997).
Jones, G. A., “The Changing Politics and Policies of Ontario Higher Education”, International Higher Education, March 1997. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News07
Kalinowski, Tess, New university gets its own leader, Toronto Star, April 21, 2006.
Karapita, M., Humber: A History, Toronto: Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. (2006).
Lyons, J. E., Randhawa, B. S., Paulson, N. A., (1991) The Development of Vocational Education in Canada, Canadian Journal of Education, 16:137-150.
MacTaggart, T. J., Restructuring Higher Education, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, (1996).
Manthorpe, J., The Power & the Tories: Ontario Politics – 1943 to the Present, Toronto: MacMillan of Canada, (1974).
Marshall, D., Filling the Gap: Calgary and the Post-secondary Education Spectrum, Calgary: Mount Royal College, (2006). Retrieved October 10, 2006 from www.mtroyal.ca/advanceddocs/Filling_the_Gap.pdf
McGrath, D., ed. Creating and Benefiting from Institutional Collaboration: Models for Success. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, (1998).
McLaughlin, R. (ed.), 125 Years of Achievement: OAC 1874-1999, Guelph: University of Guelph. (1999).
89
Memorandum of Understanding signed by Dr. M. Rozanski, President, University of Guelph, and Dr. R. Gordon, President, Humber College, June 10, 1999.
Millett, John D., Mergers in Higher Education: An Analysis of Ten Case Studies. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, (1976).
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Invitation to Ontario colleges and universities to submit proposals for funding from the SuperBuild growth fund for postsecondary education. (2000). Retrieved March 10, 2006 from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/99.10/super
Murray, D. R., Hatching the Cowbird’s Egg, Guelph: University of Guelph. (1989).
Nightingale, M., on behalf of the CAET Executive Committee, Humber-Guelph Integrated Programs: Working Assumptions, (2000).
Nightingale, M., Milestones of the University of Guelph-Humber, an accountability paper written for the University of Guelph Senate, (2004).
Ontario English Catholic Teacher’s Association, Ontario’s double cohort: A government’s experiment in education, (2002). Retrieved October 3, 2006 from www.oecta.on.ca/pdfs/ontdblcohort.pdf#search
Ontario Council of Regents, Vision 2000: Quality and opportunity, Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities, (1989).
Paikin, S., Public Triumph, Private Tragedy: The Double Life of John P. Robarts. Toronto: the Penguin Group, (2005).
Phippen, J., University of Guelph-Humber Enrolment Projections to 2012, Fall 2006.
Pitman, W., No Dead Ends: Report of the Task Force on Advanced Training to the Ministry of Education and Training, Toronto: Government of Ontario, (1993).
Price Waterhouse Coopers, The Humber Polytechnic Vision, (2001).
Proposal for Ministerial Consent to Offer a University of New Brunswick/Humber College Collaborative Integrated Degree in Nursing, (2001).
Rae, R., Postsecondary Review: Higher Expectations for Higher Education, Toronto: Government of Ontario, (2005).
Ross, A. M. & Crowley, T., The College on the Hill: A New History of the Ontario Agricultural College, 1874 – 1999, Toronto: Dundern Press. (1999).
90
Rozanski, M., Funding approval letter to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2001).
Sedgwick, R., Education in Ontario, Canada Undergoes Changes, World Education News and Reviews, Sept./Oct. 2002. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from www.wes.org.ewenr/02Sept/Practical
Skolnik, M., Joint and Integrated Programs: Another Model of the Community College Baccalaureate? Toronto: Prepared for the CCBA (Community College Baccalaureate Association) Beacon, OISE/UT. (2005).
Skolnik, M., “Should the CAATs Grant Degrees?” College Quarterly. (1995) 3:pp. 1-10.
Skolnik, M., The CAATs and change: Is there an essence that has remained constant? Does it matter? Copy of speech at the ACAATO Conference in London, Ontario, Feb. 15, 2002. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from www.acaato.on.ca/conferences/acaato/2002/primary/InternalContentParagraphs/06/docu ment/sisco_skolnik_2002
Tolijagic, M., A good fit for Ontario’s future, Toronto Star, March 20, 2006, p. J9.
Trick, D.W., Continuity, Retrenchment, and Renewal: The Politics of Government- University Relations in Ontario - 1985 – 2002. Doctoral thesis for the Graduate Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, (2005).
University of Guelph-Humber’s Knowledge, Skills and Values (2001). Retrieved June 28, 2006 from http://www.guelphhumber.ca
University of Guelph-Humber Steering Committee, Our Academic Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.caet.humberc.on.ca/academic_programs/academic_philosophy June 15, 2006.
Winton, S. & Jones, G. A., “The Challenge of Ontario’s Double Cohort,” International Higher Education, Boston: Boston College (summer 2004). Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News36/text015.htm
Interviews (Primary Research)
Brophy, K., Smits, L., Stansfield, R., interview, December 4, 2006.
Chomyn, J., interview, December 20, 2006.
Cockerton, C., interview, November 23, 2006.
Dean, A., interview, November 3 and December 15, 2006. 91
Embree, F., Humber College Dean of Planning and Development, interviews, July 7, November 3, November 6, and December 18, 2006.
Gataveckas, K., Humber’s V.P. of Business Development, interview, November 1, 2006.
Gordon, R. A., Humber College President, interviews, September 21, 2006 and December 12, 2006.
Sharma, N., interview December 8, 2006.
Smith, I., interview, November 22, 2006.
Smith, V., interview, November 15, 2006.
Stansfield, R., interview, November 14, 2006.
Walsh, J., interview, December 15, 2006.
Email Correspondence
Bridgeford, B., Humber’s Director of Capital Development, email correspondence, November 6, 2006.
Dean, A., Humber’s Director of Development, email correspondence Oct. 24, 2006.
Evers, F., email correspondence, November 7, 2006.
Gordon, R. A., Humber College President, email correspondence Oct. 26, 2006.
Hook, R., email correspondence September 28, October 23, and November 2, 2006.
Jones, G. A., email correspondence October 11, 2006.
Nightingale, M., email correspondence, October 17 and November 7, 2006.
Phippen, J., email correspondence, December 12, 2006.
Rozanski, M., email correspondence, December 1, 2006.
Skolnik, M., email correspondence October 10, 2006.
Summerlee, A., email correspondence September 19, November 3, and December 13, 2006.
92
Trick, D., email correspondence September 15 and 17, 2006.
Valens, S., email correspondence November 20, 2006.
Walsh, E., email correspondence November 13, 2006.
Walsh, J., email correspondence September 19, 2006.