The Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, and the Development of Private Universities and Private Post-secondary Degrees in Ontario
Geoffrey E. Cudmore
Abstract:
When the Government of Ontario passed the Post-secondary Education
Choice and Excellence Act 2000, to provide governance to all degree-granting
institutions in the Province, it had as its stated purpose, the goal of
increasing the choice for Ontarians who want to earn a degree. This paper examines the background to the
Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, explores some of the
views and opinions regarding the passing of Act, and provides a more in-depth
view of what has happened with regard to the expansion of degree-granting
privileges to private non-profit and private for-profit institutions in
Ontario, in the four years since the passing of the Act through the
observations of the presidents of three different kinds of private institutions
involved in the process (Redeemer University College, The Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, and RCC College of Technology).
Résumé:
Le gouvernement de l’Ontario a passé la
Loi de 2000 favorisant le choix et l’excellence au niveau postsecondaire dans
le but d’offrir un plus grand choix aux étudiants de l’Ontario désireux
d’obtenir un diplôme. Cet article
examine le contexte entourant la création de cette loi qui régit tous les
établissements d’enseignement de la province conférant des diplômes. Il considère ensuite certains points de vue
et opinions exprimés concernant sa promulgation et étudie en détail, à partir des observations des recteurs de
trois établissements privés d’enseignement engagés dans le processus (le
Collège universitaire Redeemer, le Collège canadien de médecine naturopathique
et le Collège de technologie RCC), l’effet qu’a eu cette loi, au cours des
quatre dernières années, sur l’étendue des pouvoirs de conférer des diplômes
accordés aux établissements d’enseignement privés de l’Ontario à but ou sans
but lucratif.
Introduction
W |
hen
the Government of Ontario passed the Post-secondary Education Choice and
Excellence Act 2000, to provide governance to all degree-granting
institutions in the Province, it had as its stated purpose, the goal of
increasing the choice for Ontarians who want to earn a degree. In the covering letter to applicants that
accompanies the “Directives and Guidelines for Applying for Ministerial
Consent” under the Act, then Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities,
Dianne Cunningham, describes a “new, dynamic degree-granting environment in
Ontario”, one that would consist of the existing “excellent” public
universities and a range of other institutions, both established and new.
While this act prevents institutions from granting
degrees, providing programs of post-secondary study that would lead to the
granting of a degree, and from using the appellation of “university” without
the authorization of an Act of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of
Ontario, or the consent of the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities,
it opens doors which were previously closed.
To do the work outlined in the Act, the legislation created the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment
Board (PEQAB). This board, with members appointed by the Minister,
was given the authority to establish standards and processes, to review applications, to establish review panels
that would assess the educational quality of proposed degree programs, and to
provide recommendations and advice to the Minister with regard to the granting
or denial of Ministerial consent to the applicants and for other matters
covered under the Act.
The definition
of "public" and "private" institutions used in this work is
as defined in the "Directives and Guidelines for Applying for Ministerial
Consent under the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act,
2000". The regulation defines a
"public institution" as one that “receives regular and ongoing
operating funds from a government for the purpose of providing post-secondary
education, is governed by a body the majority of whose members are appointed by
elected or government-appointed officials, or is listed in the Schedule to this
Regulation [Ontario Regulation 279/02].”
The Act also states that, “all other organizations
are deemed to be private for the purposes of applying for ministerial consent.”
An examination of the post-secondary landscape in
Ontario in 2000 shows that there were 18 “public” universities spread out
across the province serving 242,626 full-time and 72,715 part-time students
(COU, 2000). The institutions ranged
from large urban universities such as the University of Toronto with a total
enrolment of almost 55,000 students (1999 statistics - COU, 2000), to small
rural universities like Trent in Peterborough with just over 5,000 students, to
the northern colleges like Lakehead in Thunder Bay with almost 6,500 students,
and Nippising University in North Bay with only 3,396 students in 1999. The
Degree Granting Act of 1983 (Bill 41) had established in law, the monopoly
these 18 chartered degree-granting
public universities over the granting of all secular degrees.
In addition to the public, chartered, degree
granting institutions, there existed a number of privately funded,
“freestanding”, non-profit institutions in the province that had been granted
restricted degree-granting authority by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
These institutions were able to grant only identifiable (non-secular) religious
degrees. These 17 institutions (2000)
ranged from traditional Christian bible colleges, to seminaries, and institutes
of Judaic studies. Originally in this category, the former Redeemer Reformed
Christian College went through what Redeemer President Dr. Cooper described as
an “exhaustive” academic and institutional review process, that lead to the
Ministry of Colleges and Universities granting Redeemer the authority to offer
secular Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees through the passing by
the Ontario Government of Bill Pr17 in 1998.
In June of 2000 the institution was renamed Redeemer University College
(Bill Pr19). This institution provides
a model for the establishment of the private non-profit sector in the province.
With the passing of the Post-secondary Education
Choice and Excellence Act 2000, the degree-granting post-secondary sector
in the province also included the public system of 23 Colleges of Applied Arts
and Technology of Ontario, as the Act for the first time, gave the colleges the
ability to seek approval to offer baccalaureate degrees in applied areas of study.
Rounding out the post-secondary mix with
degree-granting aspirations in Ontario were some of the over 450 Registered
Private Career Colleges. These are
commercial institutions that vary greatly in size and scope, and receive no
direct public funding for operating expenses or capital. Among these are several institutions that
have degree granting status in the United States and other parts of Canada,
like DeVry University. Others have
applied to the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board for degree
granting status. These include the RCC
College of Technology, and the International Academy of Design and
Technology. There were also other
not-for-profit institutions like the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College and
the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine that were looking for approval to
offer degree programs.
In the months of consultation and hearing leading up
to the passing the of the Act, and following its enactment, there was a great
deal of debate about the merits of extending degree-granting status to private
institutions, and about the establishment of private degree-granting
institutions.
This paper examines the background to the Post-secondary
Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, explores some of the views and
opinions regarding the passing of the Act, and provides an in-depth view of
what has happened with regard to the expansion of degree-granting privileges to
private non-profit and private for-profit institutions in Ontario, in the four
years since the passing of the Act through the observations of the presidents
of three private institutions involved in the process. (Redeemer University
College, The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, and RCC College of
Technology).
Background to the Act and
the Arguments for Private Universities
O |
ntario’s
public universities enjoyed the monopolistic privilege of granting secular
degrees since 1983. As has been the
case with all public institutions, the spread of globalisation and the rise in
prominence of markets, also known as marketization (Young, 2002), and the accompanying reductions in funding from
various levels of government has resulted in the privatization of services.
These factors may also account forthe establishment of public/private
partnerships across the university sector in Ontario for more than a
decade. This pro-market agenda was
implementedat the Federal level in Canada during the successive Conservative
administrations between 1984 and 1993, (Fisher and Rubenson, 1998) and
continued in Ontario under the Conservative government that was in power from
1995 to 2003. These administrations
were, in general, suspicious of public institutions, and by extension, believed
in the greater efficiency of the free market.
Rae
(1996) writing about privatization and higher education in Alberta, and
Johnston (2000) looking at Ontario, identified four political and economic
factors that lead these two provincial Conservative governments to embrace the
creation of private non-profit and for-profit universities. What follows is a summary of these four
factors.
The first argument in favour of private universities is that in times of both
fiscal constraint and increasing student demand, the introduction of private
degree-granting institutions possibly reduces the demand on the public purse by
increasing the number of spaces for students in institutions that do not
receive government funding for either operating or capital funds. This viewpoint is manifest, as well, within
the Ontario College and University Faculty Association Research Report (OCUFA,
2000) which explores the “Government’s
spin” on private universities. The
report observes that government, along with proponents of a private system
believe that a parallel system would add much needed capacity to the university
system without drawing on public funding. It is further noted that a private
system would actually benefit the public system since, when a larger proportion
of the province’s students attend these private institutions, the actual
government funding for the public universities has a greater impact as it must
support fewer students.
The second of the
four factors that Rae and Johnston discuss relates to the widespread
disillusionment among Conservative politicians and their supporters with the
existing public education system. These
groups see a system that lacks of efficiency and adequate accountability that
can only be addressed through a strong competitive environment brought about by
a strong private sector. Since private
institutions are funded from non-governmental sources, primarily tuition, it is
often argued that they tend to maximize their efficiencies, and are more
resourceful than public institutions to keep their product affordable in the
marketplace. This point was also illustrated during the second reading of the Act on October 25th 2000,
by the Hon. Diane Cunningham, the then Minister of Training Colleges and
Universities when she told the Legislative Assembly that:
Competition to attract students by providing more
responsive programs will only serve to enhance quality and innovation in the
province’s post-secondary system as a whole.
It will also bring our university system more into line with the range
of choices offered in all other areas of education (Hansard).
Ibbitson, writing in the
Toronto Globe and Mail captures these sentiments in less polite tones as he
argues that the competition from private universities would constitute a direct
challenge to the:
complacent
monopoly of public-sector university education, to the sinecure of tenure, to
the arrogance of a system that happily relies on taxpayers dollars for 40
percent of its funding while declining to hold itself accountable to the
taxpayer for that investment (November 18, 1999).
The third argument is that
the significant potential for profitable growth by a private post-secondary
sector will attract a number of educational entrepreneurs. Walters (1999) writing in the National Post
of November 18, 1999 profiled the University of Phoenix and the Apollo Group,
America’s largest for-profit university, and offered it as a model for the
future of education in Ontario. The
article revealed that Apollo executives had met with the Minister of Training,
Colleges and Universities a month earlier. Walters quoted government sources as
predicting that the University of Phoenix would be the first private for-profit
university to offer programs in Ontario.
In the speech to the Legislative Assembly in support of the second
reading of the Act Minister Cunningham spoke of the success of the University
of Phoenix, the excellence of world-renowned private universities such as
Harvard, Yale and Stanford, and noted that both the United Kingdom and
Australia had allowed private universities to operate as a supplement to the
public university system (Hansard,
2000). The University of Buckingham in the UK, and
Bond University in Australia, were held up as the prime examples of how private
for-profit institutions can flourish along side public institutions. Taube, writing in a publication of The
Fraser Institute, widely regarded as the think-tank of Canada’s new right, not
surprisingly supported the scope and intent of Act and noted the examples of
Buckingham and Bond as well (2000). It
is worth noting as well that Bond’s strategic plan for 2002-2004 projected a
surplus (before interest, depreciation and debt reduction) of $8.1 million AUS
in 2002, which would grow to $10.1 by 2004 (Bond University, 2002).
Finally, Johnston
and Rae reported the government’s strong perception that employers need
graduates trained in specific areas, offered as just-in-time-training that can
only be provided by a responsive and agile private sector. There is also the sense that working and
mature students are seeking out specialized training and education as a means
of moving ahead in their careers. As Minister Cunninghasm stated:
A wider spectrum
of students requires a wider spectrum of choice. Some students want access to programs that are not offered by
their local colleges or universities.
Others are working full-time and want more programs available at times
and places that are convenient to them (Hansard, 2000).
Curtis supports the view
that the passage of the Act is a positive measure in reversing the effects of “the
so-called brain drain” that results from the thousands of Ontario students who
head south to the United States for programs that are not available or not
accessible in Ontario (2001). He cites
recent expansion that has taken place at teacher’s colleges in New York State
to accommodate Ontario students who are willing to pay upwards of $20,000 per
year to obtain teaching credentials that are unavailable to them in Ontario,
due to the limited space at Ontario universities.
The Case Against Private Universities in Ontario:
T |
his Act drew a hostile
reaction from a number of areas. In
April 2000, the press conference to announce that the Government of Ontario was
going to allow private universities held at a Toronto college was disrupted by
student protesters who staged a sit-in and demanded an audience with the
minister. As Minister Cunningham
attempted to explain the government’s plan to reporters, she was shouted down
and thus ultimately moved the press conference to another venue to finish (CBC
News, 29 April 2000; Zakaluzny, 2000). Even as Minister Cunningham was speaking
in support of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000,
during a session of the Legislative Assembly there were a number of
interruptions, the result of heckling from the public gallery (Hansard, 2000).
Among those
leading the opposition to the introduction of private degree-granting
institutions in Ontario were the Ontario Federation of Students, the Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Association, The Canadian Alliance of
Student Associations, The Canadian Union of Public Employees, The Ontario
Public Service Employees Union, various student unions, academics, and the
editors and reporters from many of the campus newspapers across the country. These groups raised a number of objections
to the government’s plans, challenged both the spirit and intent of the
legislation as well as the veracity of the claims made by the supporters of
private degree granting institutions.
The challenges to
private degree granting institutions revolved around funding issues. Those
opposed argued that despite the claims that the proposed private universities
would not draw on public funds, evidence drawn from other jurisdictions in
Canada, the United States, Britain, and Australia, showed that private
institutions do in fact get public money in a number of ways. They cited statistics from the United States
showing that an estimated 30% of the funds spent by private institutions there
come from either direct public subsidies or from publicly subsidized student
financial aid programs (OCUFA, 2000; CFS, 2000; Abdoullaeva, 2000, OPSEU
Online, 2000; Sunstrum, 2003; Johnston, 2000; Ryan, 2000; Bricker, 2001). These sources of public funding include the
ability of students and employers to claim tax deductions for the cost of
tuition or course fees charged by private institutions, tax incentives provided
to individuals and corporations who make charitable donations to private
institutions, financial assistance programs for students and loan guarantees by
government, government research grants for faculty, and the use of the
resources of public institutions by students and faculty of private
institution.
Johnston notes
that the government of Ontario extends student loans to students attending over
4,000 approved institutions, including private non-profit and for-profit
institutions, many of which are outside of Canada (2000). These loans are guaranteed, so that if
students default on the repayment of these loans, the government provides
compensation to the lending institutions for any amount in default. In fact, concerns were raised about the high
default rates among private career colleges.
The default rates for 1999 taken from the Ministry of Training, Colleges
and Universities website (http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/pdf/0001/sector.pdf) is
cited by OCUFA (2000) and Sunstrum (2003).
This rate showed that while the average default rate for students from
Ontario’s universities was 8.4%, and the CAATs was 20.1%, the average for
private career colleges was 31%, with some institutions with default rates at
50% (DeVry) and 72% (Shaw Business School).
In this way, while private institutions do not receive direct operating
grants from government, public money does seep into these institutions indirectly
through full-cost tuition payments, which are backed by government guaranteed
student loans.
A second argument
is that the budget cuts to the public institutions in Ontario under the
Conservative Government since 1995 had resulted in a cumulated shortfall across
the Ontario public university system of $1.2 billion in operating funds (OCUFA,
2000), and that this loss of funding lead to the reductions to programs and the
limiting of enrolments in many university programs. With Ontario ranked dead last among Canadian provinces in public
per-student funding for post-secondary education, the critics argue that the
need for private institutions would vanish if the public system were funded
adequately. Leah Casselman, president
of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in a speech to the Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations called private universities a
“phoney solution to a false problem” and called on the Government of Ontario to
restore funding to public system (OPSEU, 2000).
Critics of the
Act dispute, furthermore, the argument that private universities will provide
for a more efficient and effective education system through the development of
competition in the marketplace, by pointing out that competition already exists
in the public university system in Ontario (Johnston, 2000; OCUFA, 2000; Young,
2002; Sunstrum, 2003). They point to
statistics showing that in the Ontario university system during the period from
1992-93 to 1997-98, the revenue raised from donations as a percentage of total
revenue increased from 8% to 14%, revenue from student tuition increased from
25% to 35% of the total, while direct government funding dropped from 67% of
total revenue to 50%. They argue that
as public funds have dropped, universities have already been forced to
privatize some aspects of their operations, to raise tuition fees in line with
market demands, to compete for endowments and private donations, and to be more
innovative. Indeed, the clear distinction
between public and private institutions is not as clear as it might seem.
Another area of
concern raised by the critics includes the cost of private university
education. Even with the rise in
tuition and other fees at the public universities, the comparison between
tuition levels in Ontario and those charged by private universities operating
in other parts of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia,
lead to fears of the creation of a two-tiered post-secondary system, and
mounting student debt (Kloet, 2001).
Critics also make the point that while the average tuition fees for a
four-year degree at a publicly funded university in Canada totals $15,560, a
four-year degree at the University of Phoenix campus in British Columbia costs
$40,800. The OCUFA Research Report also
looked at the previously mentioned examples of the University of Buckingham in
the UK and Bond University in Australia and the report points out that at
Buckingham the tuition for a two-year (fast track) bachelors degree is roughly
$47,000, while at Bond tuition fees range from $48,483 to $92,081 (OCUFA,
2000). Johnston notes that the tuition
at Redeemer University College, a private non-profit university already
operating in Ontario was $8,600 per year as compared to the Ontario public
universities with an average of $3,736, and noted that the tuition fees charged
by the private universities in the Great Lakes States (adjacent to the
US-Canada border) ranged from $5,952 to $26,187 per year (2000).
Faculty
associations like the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations
(OCUFA) make the case that market driven private universities would have values
and behaviours inconsistent with those of the existing universities in Ontario
(Johnston 2000). They are concerned
that, for example, the University of Phoenix draws from a pool of part-time and
adjunct professors. The concern is that
the flexible staffing structures of the private system threatens the hard won
collective agreements and departmental political structures of the public
institutions (Rae 1996). The flexibility of these human resources structures is
inconsistent with the principles of tenure, one of the foundational conditions
of academic freedom. Ultimately, as Mount and Belanger assert this would be,
“giving undue precedence to free market and wealth creation tenets at the
expense of core academic values such as autonomy, collegiality, and free
thinking” (2001). Arguments against the establishment of private institutions
go above and beyond concerns about resources; critics are concerned,
fundamentally, about the disintegration of hard won university values that
extend beyond the market.
The final
argument against the expansion of degree-granting status to private
institutions was the fear that the quality of these institutions and their
educational products would be questionable. (Sunstrum, 2003; OCUFA, 2000). Critics point to Section 4 of the Ontario
government’s Act to regulate the Granting
of Degrees, which provided the Minister of Training, Colleges and
Universities with the authority to give written consent to out-of-province
degree-granting institutions to operate in Ontario (1983). This Act did not require that these programs
meet Ontario standards, and so the following “buyer beware” rider was required
on all documents associated with out-of-province offerings:
The ministry does
not certify that this program meets Ontario university standards. Potential registrants should verify for
themselves whether the degree program offered would be recognized by potential
employers and/or other postsecondary institutions.
The critics argue that
without standards students who could afford to attend private universities
could bypass the entrance requirements of Ontario’s public university system,
and in effect, purchase their degrees.
This fear of high-cost “degree-mills” was echoed by provincial
opposition member of provincial parliament Tony Martin (NDP – Sault Ste Marie)
during the debate on the second reading of the Post-secondary Education Choice
and Excellence Act 2000, when he claimed that the “quality of post-secondary
education will be compromised by Wal-Mart universities opening up shop in
Ontario” (Hansard, 2000).
Paul Davenport,
chair of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and president of the
University of Western Ontario, expressed that he would have no objections to
the establishment of private universities or the extension of degree-granting
privileges to private institutions as long as; the private institutions were
required to pass a detailed review process, the quality of the private
institutions matched the quality standards of the public university system, and
government increased the level of support to the public universities
(Noordermeer, 2000). Former University
of Toronto president Robert Birgeneau, who noted that he had come from the
private institution MIT and was a graduate of the private institution Yale,
said that while he did not object “in a fundamental way to adding such choices
to Ontario” he was concerned that the legislation would lead to the establishment
of poor quality institutions. He
reiterated that the need for increased support for the public system should be
the government’s topmost priority (Noordermeer, 2000).
Almost four years later, what has happened?
A |
n examination of how the post-secondary
landscape in Ontario has changed in the almost four years since the enactment
of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, shows
that the public sector has seen growth and the expansion of degree granting
status to the CAATs. Since 2000, the
public university system in Ontario has added two more public institutions
through the creation of the University of
Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT),
which shares its campus with Durham College and the extension of
degree-granting status to the Ontario
College of Art and Design in Toronto.
The Legislature of Ontario enacted both of the changes through bills
passed in June of 2002.
The Ontario CAATs
have developed and submitted 52 program
proposals to the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board (PEQAB,
2004). In the process, several of the
colleges, including Humber College, Conestoga College, and Sheridan College,
have re-branded themselves as Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning
(ITALs). To date PEQAB has recommended, and the Minister has granted consent,
for the approval of some 43 new “Applied Bachelor” programs in Arts, Business,
Technology, Information Sciences, Environmental Studies, and Human
Services. In this review, PEQAB did not
grant consent to five of the proposals, while others are still under
review.
The PEQAB Recommendations and Consents report available from their website, lists 39 submissions for a variety of program approvals and changes in status and nomenclature for both public and private institutions, many of which were granted by ministerial consent prior to the creation of the Board (PEQAB, 2004). Of these, four are approvals granting permission for institutions to use the word “university” in their name. Eight of the submissions enable Tyndale College, now Tyndale University College, one of the 17 non-profit private faith-based institutions mentioned earlier, the approval to grant a number of secular Bachelor of Arts degrees in areas such as Business, English, History, Human Services, Philosophy, Psychology and Religious Studies. Fourteen of the approvals are for new Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Health Sciences, Bachelor of Engineering and Bachelor of Arts programs to be offered by the public University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT). There are three consents for private faith-based, out of province institutions to offer new religious degrees. There are five consents for other Canadian and foreign public universities (St. Francis Xavier University from Nova Scotia, the University of New Brunswick, Central Michigan University, Charles Sturt University from Australia, and Vrije University of Amsterdam) to offer degree programs in association with existing public universities and colleges in the province. Finally, Niagara University, which is private, was given temporary consent to offer graduate level degrees in Education, and the private Adler School of Professional Psychology was given consent to “teach-out” its Masters program in Counselling Psychology, thereby providing students currently enrolled in the program the opportunity to complete their course of study, although Adler is not permitted to accept new applicants to the program at this time.
Out of the 39
submissions, only two were denied consent (PEQAB, 2004). An examination of the reasons for the denial
of consent serves to demonstrate the stringent criteria and standards required
for approval of degree-granting status.
The Michener Institute of Technology, which is private, was denied
approval for a Bachelor of Health Sciences in Medical Laboratory Science. In the letter to then Minister Cunningham
from the PEQAB Board chair, which is available from the PEQAB website, the
rational for the denial of consent was because the institute “does not have at
this time, a sufficient cluster of appropriate expertise at the necessary
academic degree level to mount, further develop and sustain a stand-alone
degree program in the field.” The
second denial of consent was for the application by the public University of
Abertay Dundee of Scotland, (to offer a Master’s of Science in Computer Games
Technology in association with Algoma University College (Sault Ste.
Marie). In this case the application
was deemed to be incomplete, as it failed to “fully reflect the content of the
program or the level of Algoma College’s contribution to program delivery.”
The PEQAB report
listing the Applications Under Review
(PEQAB, 2004) contains 30 applications.
Of these, the three applications from the Canadian School of Management
(private) have been withdrawn. Four are
new applied degree proposals from several of the Ontario CAATs, and seven are
new program proposals from UOIT. The
Niagara University of New York, which is private has submitted an application
to upgrade its previously granted “temporary” consent to offer two Masters of
Education programs, in order to fill the perceived shortage in education
programs in Ontario. There are
applications from several out-of-province or foreign public institutions to
offer similar programs. These
institutions include the State University of New York’s Masters of Science in
Teaching, another Education Master’s program from Central Michigan University,
a Masters of Education degree from Mount Saint Vincent University, Nova Scotia,
and a new Bachelor of Primary Education Studies program from Charles Sturt
University. In addition to this, the Institute for Christian Studies has
applied for secular graduate degrees, a Master’s of Philosophy and Doctor of
Philosophy. The private but non-profit
American institution Baker College of Port Huron, which is situated on the
Canada/US border, has applied to offer a Bachelors of Business Administration
program. There are also applications
for consent to offer degree programs from the private non-profit Canadian
College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic
College, and two private, for profit career colleges, the International Academy
of Design and Technology and RCC College of Technology.
What is most
surprising about all of these applications is that the institutions that
garnered the most publicity during the consultation process prior to the
enactment of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, and
following the proclamation of the Act, those being the University of Phoenix
and Unexus, along with large American private institutions like Harvard, Yale
and Stanford, that were supposed to rush in and change the landscape of
post-secondary education in Ontario were nowhere to be seen. In fact it could be argued that, despite all
of the above described developments, very little has changed with regard to the
introduction of a private university sector in Ontario in the almost four years
since the passing of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000.
The Private Perspective on the Act and PEQAB
T |
o gain a better
understanding of the Act and the working of PEQAB from the perspective of
private institutions in Ontario, interviews both face-to-face and via email
were held with the presidents of three very different private
institutions. Dr. Justin Cooper is the
President of Redeemer University College, a faith-based private non-profit
university that now offers a fairly comprehensive range of secular, undergraduate
level Liberal Arts, Science, and Education degrees. Redeemer can be seen a pioneer in the process of gaining
recognition for private post-secondary institutions in Ontario. David Schleich is the President Emeritus of
the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, a private non-profit institution
that has applied to have its current diploma program leading to the designation
of Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine approved as a Bachelor of Naturopathic
Medicine. Dr. Rick Davey is President
and CEO of RCC College of Technology, a 125 year-old private for-profit career
college that has applied to PEQAB to offer Bachelor of Technology degrees in
Computer Information Systems and Electronics Engineering Technology.
These leaders
were asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions which explored their
perceptions of areas related to the Act. These areas included benefits to their
institution, negative consequences or problems which they could relate to the
Act, benefits to students, why to date there had been no approvals sought from
the large American or other foreign private institutions, the role that
PEQAB played in the development of
private institutions in the province, and what they saw as the possible impact
of the election of the Liberal government in the fall of 2003.
In looking at the
current or future benefits of the Post-secondary Education Choice and
Excellence Act 2000, Dr. Cooper, the president of Redeemer, reflected on
the process that he and his institution had gone through in 1998 to secure
degree-granting status. As he explained:
We had an
academic review, we had a review panel, and in a sense we went through on an ad
hoc basis, everything that in 2000 was laid down as being a pattern for future
institutions by the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board.
Dr. Cooper described how,
for Redeemer, the rigorous review process “won us great credibility”, validated
the sector that the institution represents, provided a model for the subsequent
approvals by PEQAB of Tyndale University College, and the work undertaken by the
Institute of Christian Studies for their application.
I am please with
how that is being implemented. I think
that is does have teeth. My sense is
that when I look at what Tyndale and the Institute of Christian Studies has had
to go through, I have a sense that this isn’t a rubber stamp by any means, you
really have to jump through hoops.
He stated that the review
process and Redeemer’s ongoing academic and administrative success had
convinced the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities that it was
possible for a privately funded, faith-based institution to deliver quality on
a sustained basis. They could be
rigorous, and they could support academic freedom and freedom of inquiry in a
way that was entirely consistent with the public university sector. Even with tuition rates more than double
those of the public system, he pointed to the continued annual growth rate in
student enrolment of just over 7% as evidence of Redeemer’s success and
credibility.
Dr. Cooper also
saw another benefit of the act to be the further extension of Ontario Student
Assistance Program (OSAP) of grants and loans, and the provincial Aiming for the Top scholarships to
students in private universities. While
critics had pointed to the high default rates of students in the private career
colleges (Johnston, 2000), Dr. Cooper was quick to point out that the default
rate of Redeemer students was actually lower that the average for the public
universities in Ontario.
The President
Emeritus of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM), David
Schleich, saw many benefits of the possible approval of the proposed degree to
their institution.. The first of these
is the formal accreditation of CCNM’s programs and learning. As he explains:
The first and
most important benefit of the Act is the opportunity to get a credential called
a degree that has currency, or credibility, or acceptance in jurisdictions
where Naturopathic Doctors may wish to practice. An example of this is the State of Oregon that requires graduates
of CCNM to an extra year or longer to qualify for the Board exams or entry to
practice exams, because the credential they have is a diploma and not a
degree.
The second benefit that Mr.
Schleich identified was the ability to qualify for additional graduate degrees,
such as in epidemiology at other institutions.
He noted that current graduates of the four-year diploma program at CCNM
are not eligible for consideration for programs to Ontario graduate schools.
The third benefit
of the Act for CCNM in particular would be that in order to meet the very
rigorous academic standards set by PEQAB, it was necessary for CCNM to have the
research qualifications of their teaching staff “ratcheted upward
dramatically”. He saw this challenge as
being good for the institution and the profession, because the institution and
the profession require more sophisticated research capacity. In a sense then,
this would induct the CCNM, and possibly even the profession of naturopathy
into what is viewed as a more credible system of accreditation and
professionalization.
The fourth reason
is that degree-granting status would enable CCNM to participate in a variety of
international training contracts with organizations like the Association of
Canadian Community Colleges. The education
establishment would understand CCNM to be an “equal partner in joint degree
collaboration or the streaming of students from one institution to another”.
In contrast to
the above outlined benefits to the CCNM of the Act, President Dr. Rick Davey
from RCC College of Technology reported that, to date, his institution had not
realized any benefits. As he explains, there were “only costs which have been
considerable (time and money).” That
said, he expected that given the ability to grant degrees RCC’s market-share
would increase in two ways:
“We will be more
attractive to high school students who want a degree and we will attract the
young adult market to our unique brand of application-oriented education.”
When asked about the
possible negative implications of the Act for their institutions, all three
presidents mentioned the thousands of dollars and the huge investment of staff
time required to “join the club”. The presidents also noted that being private
institutions, these costs must necessarily be passed along to their students in
the form of higher tuition and user fees.
Both Dr. Cooper
and David Schleich reported that another negative impact of the Act and the
process set by PEQAB is that there is a far greater emphasis on regulation
since the act, like the increased audits from OSAP. Dr. Cooper took exception to being treated “like a private
vocational college”. With their new
Bachelor of Education program, Redeemer is required by the Act to post of a
bond with a minimum value of $150,000 as part of the Student Protection
Measures as financial security should Redeemer go bankrupt and not be able to
fulfill its commitments to enrolled students.
As Dr. Cooper explains: “Has this been done for universities, with at
track record of twenty-five years… with a budget of $15 million… it is really a
nuisance factor!” He also felt other similar requests were unnecessary and
irrational, such as the transcript negotiation with McMaster University under
which Redeemer had pay for the McMaster registrar to keep copies of Redeemer’s
student records in the event that Redeemer closes its doors. Public
institutions are not required to do this arguably because accountability
structures are quite different. That is, regardless of their age or history,
public universities are seen as more stable than private institutions because
of their relationship to the government.
According to David Schleich, PEQAB has worked against the promise of the Act with regard to private institutions:
Now that the Board itself reviews the
recommendations of the secretariat and in turn makes further recommendations to
the Minister, the process of choosing that board is probably as political as
operational. You can see the thinking
behind the sectors that are represented.
The bias toward the university model is clearly there….
For CCNM, the additional
regulation is regarded by many of the practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine as
a direct assault on their practice. As Schleich explains:
Historically the
Naturopathic profession has been able to supervise and monitor its own program
form through an agency called the Council of Naturopathic Medicine Education
(CNME), which is an American organization which includes in its letters of
patent provisions for Canadian colleges, and there are two of them, one in
Vancouver and one in Toronto. The
profession would have to then acknowledge in the community that there was
another authority about the nature and extent of their program.
According to Dr. Davis of
RCC College, the downside of the Act is very straightforward. The Act granted his main competition, the
public Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs) , the ability to
grant applied degrees and PEQAB has yet to approve his application. This has accelerated RCC’s planning and their
imperative to achieve degree-granting status.
For them it is a matter of survival in a very competitive marketplace.
When asked how
they regarded PEQAB and the role the Board has played in the approval process
for their degree programs, the three presidents all felt that there were some
concerns. Redeemer’s Dr. Cooper said
that he would view PEQAB as being more of a hurdle and less of a facilitator,
but, at the same time, he revealed the benefits of these circumstances. He
explained that there were many institutions that initially had thought that the
process would be a “cakewalk”, but who have since decided that it isn’t worth a
price tag of $35,000 to “jump through the hoops” necessary for program
approval. He felt that it was a good
thing to keep the numbers of private institutions in Ontario low, so that,
theoretically, only quality
institutions that meet the grade are approved.
He, furthermore, described his discussions with the officials at Tyndale
who explained that the PEQAB process had been good for them in that it brought
them “up to standard”. However, Cooper recounted how Tyndale officials had also
complained about the “160 binders, and thousands and thousands of dollars”
involved in the approvals process.
David Schleich of
CCNM also perceived the PEQAB to be both a gatekeeper and a facilitator. In
addition to Cooper, he felt the process was rewarding. As he explains:
Gatekeeper in the sense that the group and its resources have been focussed on creating an articulated set of standards and processes. Gatekeeper in the sense of perpetuating a secretariat whose mandate it is to implement those standards for applicants. Gatekeeper in the sense of justifying those standards to the large community, by that I mean the large higher education community. PEQAB acts as a facilitator, in the sense that the committee welcomes people. The application is pretty user friendly, although it is bulky. They are very customer friendly and very supportive and enabling, and are truly facilitators.
For Dr. Davey, there is “no question” that
PEQAB is a gatekeeper. He felt that
PEQAB and its processes reduce the promotion of systemic diversity), by forcing
private institutions to be more like public, conventional universities. This occurs as the notion of accountability
becomes more important precisely because private institutions are backed up by
the government. Ironically, this process transforms private institutions, in
some ways, to look more like quasi-public institutions. In this way, even
though there are two systems: one that is public and one that is private, when
the government enters into the equation, they are not completely different than
one another because of the presence of accountability issues.
One of the major areas for concern
raised by the critics of the Act was that the large private for-profit
institutions, like the University of Phoenix, would come in and change the
post-secondary landscape in Ontario.
During the consultation process, Cooper made a presentation to the
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Statute Law Amendment Act
Subcommittee on November 20, 2000 in which he made a case for leaving for
profit institutions out of the process. As he explained:
We believe that for-profit
institutions should be excluded from receiving consent or accreditation to
operate as a private university or degree-granting institution, as is the case
in other jurisdictions as we understand it.
In the United States, for example, for-profit, or proprietary
institutions, as they are also known, are ineligible for accreditation by the
regional accrediting associations, which are the primary accrediting bodies.
For-profit institutions, especially
if they use only part-time instructors and have no research mandate, fulfill in
some residual way the task of disseminating knowledge but do so in isolation
from the other essential function, we believe, of an educational institution,
namely, the advancement of knowledge.
Such a departure from the traditional mission of the university does
not, in our view, promote excellence, and neither will it, over the long term,
do so (Hansard, Subcommittee Report, 2000).
Interestingly, Cooper later admitted to
changing his position regarding the case of the University of Phoenix. He
explained that he had come to understand that the University of Pheonix is not
attempting to compete with liberal arts institutions for cohorts of high school
students, but instead they are focused on training mature learners and
providing them with more vocational degrees. As Cooper explained, “The
modalities lead me to the conclusion that there can be a legitimate place for
things like the University of Phoenix, even on a for-profit basis…” Schleich
also felt that the large private American institutions like Argosy and Apollo
who had shown initial interest but have not yet sought approvals for programs
would ultimately return. As for why
they aren’t here now, he conjectured that it was because they were not ready to
make the investment:
The Argosy Group and the Phoenix people are going to come back when the return on investment is in the short-term black ink, and it isn’t short-term black ink in most cases. Now DeVry is not here any more for that very reason, they could not operate in Ontario, in the marketplace that their student wanted to be in, without considerable disadvantage, and so they went away.
As Schleich’s statement makes clear, unlike not-for profit private and public institutions, the motivations, needs and goals of private institutions make them an entirely different animal. Unless the correct market exists, and unless they can serve up the right product, for-profits will stay away. PEQAB’s standards then were added expenses that hindered the profitability of these institutions.
The former President of DeVry, Ontario, Dr. Davey, agreed that the current business climate for many of the private universities was not conducive to making the investments necessary to meet the standards required by the Ontario Government. He said that the Act, its associated requirements and costs, was responsible for DeVry moving to the more hospitable climate of Alberta. As he explains:
The current legislation makes it
difficult for a stand-alone start-up…big costs with no guarantee.
What happens, for instance, if the Minister decides not to continue her
assent at the five-year renewal?
Davey did, however, mention in closing that three significant U.S. companies, Career Education, Corinthian Colleges, and Education Management, had recently purchased private career colleges in Ontario, and that The International Academy of Design and Technology (Career Education) had an application before PEQAB at this time.
Conclusions:
I |
n examining the four years since the proclamation of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, it can be concluded that while there have been a few notable winners in the process, for many stakeholders, this has been a time of unrealized positive and negative expectations.
Of the total of 117 applications that PEQAB has dealt with since its inception, 87 have been from a variety of public institutions. Of these, 52 were applied degree proposals from the CAATs and 22 were from UOIT. While the bulk of the discussion regarding the Act focused on the possible negative impact of the extension of degree granting status to a whole range of private institutions, it is clear that the Act did significantly expand the degree granting status within other parts of Ontario’s public post-secondary system. As an example, President Davey of RCC College of Technology, cited the ability of his main competition, the CAATs, to grant applied degrees as the main reason why his institution applied to PEQAB for the permission to grant degrees. While all of the CAATs in the Toronto region have received approvals for applied degree proposals, the RCC College of Technology still waits.
When examining the total of 30 applications from private institutions that were received by PEQAB, 17 were from the Tyndale University College the non-profit, faith-based institution that Dr. Cooper said was following in Redeemer University’s footsteps. In fact, only three of the submissions were from private for-profit institutions, the two from RCC College of Technology (Bachelors of Technology in Computer Information Systems and Electronics Engineering Technology) and the International Academy of Design & Technology (Bachelor of Arts in Interior Design).
The many critics of the Act, including the student federations, the college and university faculty associations, unions, academics, and opposition politicians, had all raised the spectre of a huge influx of profit driven private universities offering expensive, low quality “McDegrees” to the students of Ontario, the ensuing (and inexorable) erosion of standards, and the end of their academic way of life. In the end, their predictions of doom never materialized. It could be that as Dr. Cooper pointed out, the “considerable cost and the hoops” might have been a disincentive for many private institutions. Others might argue that the critics were so effective in their opposition that the government realized that it would not be able to implement its agenda of privatization after all. David Schleich was clear in his view that, “the group (PEQAB) and its resources have been focussed on creating an articulated set of standards and processes” however that the appointed PEQAB board was “clearly biased toward the university model.” Others point out that the change in government in Ontario might very well have been a result of the efforts of a disgruntled and well-organized education sector (Birchard, 2003).
For the former government, and those involved as authors and supporters of the Act, former Minister Cunningham’s promise of a “new, dynamic degree-granting environment in Ontario” has been largely unrealized. While there have been some changes, involving several of the well established private non-profit faith-based institutions, the creation of a new public university of technology – UOIT, and the extension of “applied” degree-granting status to the CAATs, the change, particularly in the case of the development of a large and viable private for-profit sector did not happen.
With the election of a Liberal government in Ontario in October of 2003 a new set of factors have been brought into play. When in opposition, Liberal members were clearly opposed to private institutions having access to higher education credentials, and now these politicians, who had argued against the Act, are now sitting on the government benches. The reality is that the new Liberal government has inherited a public postsecondary system that has been under-funded during the last decade by over a billion dollars, a public postsecondary infrastructure with an estimated six hundred million dollars in deferred maintenance, and an increasing demand for programs and services. It is very obvious that the Act has done little to reduce the postsecondary demand on the public purse, and there is so far no evidence of the promised parallel system of private institutions that was to have added university seats for the students of Ontario without drawing on public funds.
It may be significant that the new government has initiated two reviews of postsecondary education. In March, the new Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, initiated review of the Private Career Colleges Act. The goal of this review is to ensure the quality, accessibility and accountability of all institutions that make up that system, and ensure that students enrolling in Private Career Colleges receive the services that they paid for. Also, in May, as part of the Liberal government’s first provincial budget, it was announced that former Premier Bob Rae, the former leader of the New Democratic Party, whose platform and policies are to the left of the Liberals, would conduct a comprehensive review to examine the design and funding of Ontario's postsecondary education system. This review, to be concluded in January of 2005, has as its stated goal, “ensuring that Ontario will have a high quality, accessible and affordable postsecondary system for today's students and for future generations”. There is no specific mention of the role of the private degree-granting institutions in the description of the study. If the Rae Review is to be seen as comprehensive, the private post-secondary sector will clearly have to be part of the equation.
The previous Conservative government had both ideological and fiscal rationales, but was unable to realize its agenda for private university education in Ontario. It remains to be seen if the new Liberal government, with its ongoing reviews of post-secondary education, will support the original intent of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act 2000, and encourage the development of a strong private degree-granting post-secondary sector in Ontario over the next four years, or not. It may be that David Schleich’s prediction of the inevitability of a private for-profit sector, including freestanding private for-profit universities in Ontario will be realized for financial rather than any ideological reasons, and that in time, the attractiveness to government of thousands of new university spaces that do not draw on direct government funding for operating or capital, will be too powerful to resist, regardless of the political ideology of the party in power.
References:
Abdoullaeva, J. (2000). Notes on University Privatization, McMaster
Student Union. McMaster University, Hamilton. Retrieved 30 May 2004 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/media/000111.php
Altbach, P., Davis, T, (1999). Global
Challenge and National Response: Notes for an International Dialogue on Higher
Education, Chapter 1, pp 3-10, Higher
Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge and National
Response, IIE Research Report No. 29, The Institute of International
Education.
Association of Colleges of Applied Arts
and Technology of Ontario, (2003). Ontarians
hold strong views about post-secondary education. ACAATO Research News,
September/October 2003.
Birchard, K. (2003). Academics Help
Liberals Win Ontario. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume 50, Issue 8
Page A46. October 17, 2003.
Breslin, L. (2000). Private Universities: Friend or Foe? University of Waterloo Student Centre, Imprint Online: News – Friday, October 27, 2000 (Volume 23, Number 15) Retrieved 26 March 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/issues/102700/1News/news01.shtml
Bond University (2002). Growth to Greatness: Strategies for 2002-2004. Retrieved 30 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.bond.edu.au/exec/reports/GrowthToGreatness_2002.pdf
Bricker, J. (2001) Critics Attack Push for Private Universities Across Canada. Arthur – Trent University Student and Community Newspaper. Retrieved March 26 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.trentu.ca/arthur/archive/34/34-14/news01.html
Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, (2002). 5, 10 then! A Framework for Action: CCNM's
Strategic Plan 2002-2007. March 18,
2002. Retrieved 30 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ccnm.edu/pdf/5%2010%20...then.pdf
C.F.S. (2000). STOP PRIVATISATION – Private, Degree-Granting Institutions. The Canadian Federation of Students,
Ontario Component, October 2000.
Retrieved 26 March 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.cfsontario.ca/policy/factsheets/ma-200010-privatisation.pdf
CBC News (2000). Ontario opts for U.S.-style universities. Headlines: Canada, Last Updated Saturday April 29, 2000. Retrieved 30 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/04/28/universities_000428
C.O.U. (2000). Facts and Figures 2000. Council of Ontario Universities. Retrieved
7 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/briefs_reports/facts_and_figures_2000/factsfigs2000.htm
Currie, J. (2002) Australian Universities as Enterprise Universities: Transformed Players
on a Global Stage. Paper presented
20 September 2002 at Globalisation: What issues are at Stale for Universities?
Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Curtis, M. (2001). Private Universities Coming to Ontario. The Fraser Institute Canadian Student Review. Retrieved March 26 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/csr/2001/spring/section_08.html
Fisher, D., Rubenson, K. (1998). The Changing
Political Economy: The Private and Public Lives of Canadian Universities. Universities and Globalization: Critical
Perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Government of Ontario. (2002) Post-secondary Education Choice and
Excellence Act, 2000 (Amended by 2002, c. 8, Sched. F, s. 11.) Retrieved 7
May 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/00p36_e.htm
Green, R. (2003). NAFTA & Private Universities, Ontario and Alberta set the stage for
the market take-over of public post-secondary education. Canadian Federation of Students –
Quebec. Retrieved 26 March from the
World Wide Web: http://www.education-action.net/ruckuseng/naftapus.htm
Healy, T. (2002). Public Exclusion, Under Funding and the Intensification of Work:
Universities and the Erosion of Democracy in Ontario. Just Labour. Vol. 1
(2002), pp 68-76. Retrieved 10 April 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.justlabour.yorku.ca/jl_healy.pdf
Howlett, K. and Waldie, P. (2003) Crisis hitting Canada’s private
colleges. Globe and Mail, Saturday,
September 27, 2003. Retrieved March 26
2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030927/UCOLLN/TPTechInvestor
Ibbitson, J. (1999). Harris weighting whether to open the door to private, non-profit
universities. The Toronto Globe and Mail, 18 November 1999.
In Trust (2003). Tyndale College to Receive University College Status. In Trust
Online. May 7, 2003. Retrieved May 30
2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.intrust.org/learn/news_detail.cfm?id=6
Johnston, L. (2000).
Private Universities in Ontario,
Current Issue Paper 203, Ontario Legislative Library Research and Information
Service, Toronto.
Kloet, L.
(2001). Private universities are coming.
The Silhouette. Volume 71, Number 16.
Retrieved March 26 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/sil/archives/010111/news/private.htm
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Hansard. (2000). Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000. Hansard Issue: L095B Retrieved March 26 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/37-1/1095b.htm
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Hansard.
(2000). Subcommittee Report: Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 132. Retrieved March 26 2004 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/37_parl/session1/Committees/GenGov/G034.htm
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities of Ontario (2004).
Private Funded Ontario Institutions with
Degree-Granting Authority. Retrieved 26 March from the World Wide Web: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/priv_deg.html
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities of Ontario (2000).
Directives and Guidelines for Applying
for Ministerial Consent Under the Post-secondary Education Choice and
Excellence Act, 2000. Retrieved 26 March from the World Wide Web: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/postsec/degree/guideline.pdf
Moore, D. (2003). Toward a Single Definition of College. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 26 May 20024from
the World Wide Web: http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i12/12b00701.htm
Mount, J. and Belanger, C. (2001). ‘Academia Inc.’ The Perspective of
University Presidents. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Volume
XXXI, No 2, 2001, pp. 135-166.
Noordermeer, J. (2000). Private Universities one-step closer.
Birgeneau expresses concern that private universities could divert public money
from public universities. news@UofT,
University of Toronto. Retrieved 14 April 2004 from the World Wide Web http://news.utoronto.ca/bin1/001023b.asp
Noordermeer, J. (2000). Mixed
reaction greets private university plan. Approval in principle, caution in
practice. news@UofT,
University of Toronto. Retrieved 1 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://news.utoronto.ca/bin1/001030g.asp
Orton, L. (2003) A New Understanding of Postsecondary Education in Canada: A discussion
paper. Statistics Canada, Ministry
of Industry, 2003. Catalogue no. 81-595-MIE2003011.
OCUFA (Ontario Confederation of University
Faculty Associations), (2000). Private
Universities in Ontario, Decoys Instead of Dollars for Postsecondary Education.
OCUFA Research Report, vol. 1 no. 2.
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(2000). Private Universities Pose a
Threat. OPSEU OnLine. Retrieved 26 March from the World Wide Web: http://www.opseu.org/news/AxFax_200623.htm
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board
(2004). Applications Under Review. Retrieved 23 April 2004 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.peqab.edu.gov.on.ca/reviewalpha.html
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board
(2004). FAQ What is a Degree Level Standard? Retrieved 30 May 2004 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.peqab.edu.gov.on.ca/faq.html
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board
(2004). Recommendations and Consents.
Retrieved 23 April 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.peqab.edu.gov.on.ca/granted.html
Rae, P. (1996). New Directions: Privatization and Higher Education in Alberta. The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, Volume XXVI-2, 1996, pp. 59-80.
Redeemer University College
(2004) About
Redeemer. Retrieved 17 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.redeemer.on.ca/about_redeemer.html
Rimrott, F. (2001). Are Private Universities the solution? Limited enrolments in medical
schools escalating shortage of physicians.
news@UofT, University of
Toronto. Retrieved 1 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://news.utoronto.ca/bin2/thoughts/forum010910.asp
Ryan, S. (2000). For-profit, private universities accessible only to those who can
afford to pay. Canadian Union of
Public Employees, News release April 28, 2000. Retrieved 26 March from the
World Wide Web: http://www.cupe.on.ca/news/nr000428.html
Stromquist, N. P., Monkman, K. (2000)
Defining Globalization and Assessing Its Implications on Knowledge and
Education. In Stromquist, N. P., Monkman, K
(Ed.), Globalization and Education:
Integration and Contestation Across Cultures. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. Lanthan, Maryland
Stromquist, N. P. (2002) Education in a Globalized World: The
Connectivity of Economic Power, Technology and Knowledge. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanthan, Maryland.
Sunstrum, A. (2003). McDegrees, anyone? The prospect of private universities worries students and faculty alike, but the provincial government doesn’t seem to be listening. Varsity Feature. Retrieved 26 March from the World Wide Web: http://www.varsity.utoronto.ca:16080/archives/120/apr03/feature/mcdegree.html
Taube, M. (2000). June 2000 Fraser Forum: Private
Universities in Ontario? It Just Might Happen. The Fraser Institute. Retrieved
26 March 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2000/06/section_16.html
The University of Buckingham (2004). Ten
Good Reasons to Study Here. Retrieved 30 May 2004 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.buck.ac.uk/standingout/
Walters, J. (1999). Private, for-profit university would be the first to offer degree
program. National Post, 18 November 1999, A9.
Withers, K. (2004). RCC College of Technology Appoints New President, Introduces
Technology-Based Business Program and Begins Transformation to Degree-Granting Technology
Institution. RCC College of Technology, Janaury 12, 2004. Retrieved 30 May
from the World Wide Web: http://www.rcc.on.ca/news/jan12.asp
Young, S. (2002). The Use of Market Mechanisms in Higher Education Finance and State
Control: Ontario Considered. The
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002, pp 79-102.