May 1, 2019 Hon. Merrilee Fullerton Minister of Training, Colleges And

May 1, 2019 Hon. Merrilee Fullerton Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Mowat Block 3rd Floor Rm 359, 900 Bay St, Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Fullerton, On behalf of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) and the 17,000 full-time and contract university professors and academic librarians we represent at 29 member associations across the province of Ontario, I am writing in regards to the recent announcement in the Ontario budget regarding the implementation of a performance/outcomes-based funding model for postsecondary institutions. As you can appreciate, Ontario’s approach to funding its universities shapes the capacity of our postsecondary institutions to ensure high-quality learning experiences for students and an environment that cultivates innovative research. Any change to Ontario’s university funding formula requires careful consideration, and we are very concerned that this drastic change towards tying 60 per cent of public funding for postsecondary institutions has been introduced without any prior consultation with the stakeholders in the sector. This change is an optical illusion representing a false measure of accountability while threatening equity, accessibility and the quality of education at Ontario’s universities. As previously stated by OCUFA, one of the central concerns with the former government’s work towards the implementation of the current funding formula was that the Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA) negotiations did not included adequate consultation with the university community, including faculty, staff, and students. Another concern has been that the performance-based funding proposals advanced by both the former and current provincial governments are grounded in inaccurate and misleading research produced by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). HEQCO is often referenced as if they were an independent stakeholder providing peer reviewed research and advice. The fact of the matter is that HECQO ostensibly reports to you. We view HEQCO’s advice as about as independent as the advice you receive from your staff, and if anything represents a perfect example of policy based evidence making. Had you consulted any credible research on the topic of performance indicators in post-secondary education—and we would be happy 17 Isabella St, Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1M7 • T 416 979-2117 • F 416 593-5607 • [email protected] • www.ocufa.on.ca to share the research with you—you would have discovered that in every jurisdiction in which they have been introduced they have exacerbated inequity, deepened the divide between urban institutions and those outside of urban centres and done absolutely nothing to improve the student experience. In sum, the only thing performance indicators actually measure is the capacity of institutions to manipulate and gerrymander internal processes and metrics to meet arbitrary criteria. In addition, we are disappointed to see that this announcement repeats the government pattern of introducing radical change without consulting those in the sector most affected. University faculty, who dedicate themselves daily to teaching and research, are among the best positioned to understand the factors that influence the quality of a student’s education and their ability to excel. The experience and expertise faculty possess mean they have an unparalleled understanding of the factors that influence education and research outcomes as well the time and resources required to collect useful data. According to polls conducted in March 2018 by Mission Research, 75% of Ontarians trust faculty to make decisions about university education while only 40% trust the government. The exclusion of faculty voices from this crucial shift is anti-democratic at every level. The failure to consult with faculty and incorporate their input into these agreements raises significant concerns about how decisions regarding the future direction of universities are being made, and the legitimacy and effectiveness of the new model itself. Without a robust consultative process that meaningfully includes faculty perspectives, an informed conversation about quality, data, and metrics is not possible. As your Ministry prepares for negotiations for the third round of Strategic Mandate Agreements, it is imperative that MTCU require institutions to provide evidence of meaningful consultation with faculty before negotiations between the Ministry and university administrations begin, and again before the final agreements are approved. While it is the responsibility of local university administrations to undertake local consultations, the Ministry must take a leadership role and set enforceable standards for the negotiation process. This will ensure that the SMAs reflect the perspectives, experiences, and priorities of the entire campus community – not just administrators. OCUFA’s position on performance/outcomes-based funding OCUFA has long cautioned against the government’s planned shift towards allocating a portion of university funding based on “performance”. Such a shift would be counterproductive as it will, by design, create inequities and slowly but certainly undermine the integrity of Ontario’s postsecondary education system. Rather than employing such unnecessarily risky and destabilizing methods, available data should be thoughtfully leveraged to inform and improve policymaking decisions and outcomes. 2 Performance metrics are only able to provide a limited assessment of specific outcomes. They are incapable of credibly reflecting the breadth and depth of a student’s education, the long-term benefits of basic research projects, or the contributions of a faculty member. There is a growing body of research that suggests that performance-based funding models do not help jurisdictions meet the academic goals they set out to achieve. In the United States, performance-based funding models have typically aimed to address specific policy concerns, such as student retention and degree completion, but studies have found no discernible impact when compared with jurisdictions without performance funding mechanisms. In fact, performance funding has been shown to have had negative effects in some jurisdictions. A recent study in the UK confirmed the deep urban bias of metrics by demonstrating that for every mile an institution, with the exception of Cambridge and Oxford, was outside London its score on every metric lowered by a corresponding amount. There is also considerable evidence that performance funding produces a variety of unintended consequences, some that could harm higher education in Ontario. For example, researchers in Washington found that one clear response to performance funding was an increase in institutions’ granting of short-term certificates. These credentials have limited labour market utility, but have the advantage of moving students through an institution quickly, thereby boosting student retention and graduation rates. In Florida, the emphasis on completion rates dove universities to drop or reduce key program requirements because their level of difficulty was a “barrier” for student completion. Clearly, neither example provides a better education for students. Evidence further suggests that performance metrics may lead to raising admission requirements, which has negative implications for equity and access. More qualified or at least seemingly better prepared students are more likely to be chosen in order to boost performance statistics. A recent study has shown that on average, minority-serving institutions, compared to the larger research schools, are more likely to be negatively impacted by performance-based funding models, which can cause these institutions to alter their academic missions. Performance-based funding hinders access to higher education, especially for marginalized students, and penalizes universities that seek to enrol under- represented students. OCUFA’s requests We would like to cordially request a meeting with the Minister and the policy staff at MTCU who are responsible for the implementation of the new performance/outcomes-based funding model. We would appreciate if a meeting could be set up in the near future. Moreover, given the limited information released regarding the details of this new funding model, we have a number of questions for which we would like the Ministry to provide answers: 3 1. What is the mechanism for administrating the outcomes-based portion of the funding allocations? If an institution fails to meet the expected outcomes, would their funding be reduced in the following year? If so, how would the deducted funding amounts be reallocated? Would the funds be sent back into the treasury or allocated to institutions that are performing well? 2. Will funding allocations for each institution be reviewed and determined on an annual basis or at the end of each strategic mandate agreement cycle? 3. What is the timeline for negotiating the new strategic mandate agreements? Will those negotiations be mandated to include faculty input through academic decision- making bodies such as university senates? Sincerely, Gyllian Phillips, OCUFA President CC: Chris Glover (Opposition Critic for Post-Secondary Education), Kathleen Wynne (Ontario Liberal Party), Mike Schreiner (Green Party of Ontario) 4 .

Load more