A Historical Analysis of Seneca College's Journey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What’s in a Name? A Historical Analysis of Seneca College’s Journey Towards Increased Institutional Differentiation within the Ontario Postsecondary System 2001–2012 by Cynthia D. Hazell A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education OISE/University of Toronto © Copyright by Cynthia D. Hazell 2019 What’s in a Name? A Historical Analysis of Seneca College’s Journey Towards Increased Institutional Differentiation within the Ontario Postsecondary System 2001–2012 by Cynthia D. Hazell Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education OISE/University of Toronto Doctor of Philosophy, 2019 ABSTRACT Pursuant to Ontario’s Postsecondary Education Choice and Excellence (PECE) Act, 2000 and the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, the then Progressive Conservative provincial government announced in August, 2002, that the “doors were open” for colleges to submit proposals for formal differentiated status. In November, 2002, in response to this invitation, Seneca College proposed a business case and strategy for formal differentiated status. Seneca’s resultant, approved “Differentiated College Mandate Accountability Agreement” committed the college to a differentiation vision which included an expanded academic mandate, pathways and partnerships with other institutions, increased applied research and an “on again, off again” pursuit of polytechnic status. Using a historical case analysis, Seneca’s intent and rationale in pursuing this vision during the study period are examined in the context of Ontario’s broader postsecondary system design. ii Based on documentary analysis and interviews with key internal and external informants, the study finds that Seneca’s overarching goal was to increase access, choice and degree-completion options for Ontario’s postsecondary students, and that the college made considerable ongoing contributions to the province in each of these differentiation areas. Seneca’s success in affecting broader system design change, up to an including the creation of a new institutional category of institutions, was seen to be limited by underlying competitive dynamics among and between both colleges and universities, ambiguities and breakdowns in trust regarding Seneca’s institutional aspirations, turnover of key champions both within government and in the institutions, and a perceived influence over government by Ontario’s university presidents. Seneca (along with some other institutions) was seeking a recognizable branding for its expanded academic mandate and differentiated status that would distinguish it from the other Ontario colleges and from the universities. A perceived hierarchy of institutions both within and across the two sectors, and the resultant competitive dynamics therein, likely constrained these efforts. Any future postsecondary reforms that are perceived to alter the strength and clarity of Ontario’s binary system (and the convergence of institutions within each sector) would reQuire bold government vision and political support in order to succeed. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completing this research has been a long journey. What began as a personal and professional goal, truly became a “labour of love”. Having spoken professionally about the importance of lifelong learning for many years, I have developed a renewed appreciation and respect for all adult learners. It would have been impossible to stay motivated and committed throughout the process without the support and encouragement of so many people. First, I want to thank my supervisory committee -- Professor Michael Skolnik, Dr. Katharine Janzen and my supervisor, Dr. Glen Jones -- for saying “yes” so many years ago, and for their ongoing encouragement and feedback each step of the way. Most significantly, I’m Quite sure I would not have made it to the finish line without Glen’s incredible advice and support; he kept me grounded throughout the journey despite various personal and professional circumstances that interrupted my academic focus. Glen’s approach epitomized the principles of adult learning, offering encouragement and guidance when I needed it most, but allowing me to chart my own path (and learn from my mistakes) along the way. I would also like to thank my oral examination committee, in particular Dr. Greg Moran and Dr. Leesa Wheelahan, for their contributions in enabling such an intimidating process to morph into a truly engaging and enjoyable discussion! I owe so much to Seneca College, and the wonderful colleagues with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working over the years and from whom I’ve learned so much, and who encouraged me to embark on this journey in the first place. This research would have been impossible without the support of both Seneca presidents, Dr. Rick Miner and current president David Agnew, and the ongoing assistance provided by President Agnew’s office, iv in particular Chief of Staff/AVP Renata Dinnocenzo, in ensuring I had access and assistance throughout the document review process. I would also like to thank all of the interview participants from Seneca, other colleges and universities, and the broader postsecondary sector, for being so candid and forthcoming in their contributions. The richness of your responses made such a difference! And finally, this would never have been possible without the ongoing support, love and “cheerleading” of my biggest fans, my family (extended and immediate) and many special friends. You know who you are! To my grown-up “kids”, Sean & Allie, Tim, and Rebecca: huge thanks for believing in me, and for making me believe that this mattered to you. To my two granddaughters, Frankie and Augusta, who were born during this thesis journey: your constant interest in my “school” and my “homework” provided more motivation than you will ever know. To my father, “W.C.” who was my first academic mentor (and vice-versa) and who passed away during the process, and to my mom, Marion, who told me she wanted to go back to school “someday” and learn something new: I will think of you both with love and pride at convocation. And finally, to my husband Richard: it was you who bore the biggest burden of support and encouragement, both practically and emotionally throughout this journey - Thank you! Thank you for trying to understand why this “hobby” was so important to me, for your constant (gentle?) reminders to stay focused, and for putting it all in context when I had finally finished, saying I had truly earned the right to call myself a lifelong learner. Thanks for your support and unconditional love each step of the way. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. x CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Ontario’s Binary System Design ............................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Transfer and Mobility ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Seneca’s Evolving Mandate ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Purpose of the Research ............................................................................................................................ 9 1.6 Why is it important to understand this phenomenon? ............................................................. 10 1.7 Renewed Urgency ...................................................................................................................................... 12 1.8 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................... 15 1.9 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................................... 17 1.10 Conceptual Lens ....................................................................................................................................... 17 1.11 Personal Interest and Rationale ....................................................................................................... 18 1.12 Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 19 1.13 Organization of the Thesis .................................................................................................................