Tensions and Coherence between Federal and Provincial policies for HEIs in Ontario

• In Event: New research methods for improving education around the world

Proposal

In April 2019, the Ontario government announced significant changes towards the “innovative and sustainable post-secondary sector” (Fideli, 2019, p. 184) as part of its annual budget. The new SMAs (2020-2025) have introduced a performance-based funding model for higher education institutions in Ontario. The new SMAs mentioned, “Through the next round of SMAs, Ontario will become a national leader in outcomes-based funding by tying 60 percent to performance by the 2024–25 academic year” (2019, p. 187). In the new model, funding is focused on 10 student and economic targets (Ministry of Colleges and Universities, 2021) which are largely outcome based.

Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution, titled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” in 2015 as “a plan of action for people, the planet and prosperity [which] also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom” (UN, 2015, p. 1). The resolution introduced 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with 169 targets to meet those goals, focusing on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability In September 2015, Canada also adopted the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. As a result of nationwide consultation, in June 2019, Federal Government released “Towards Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy (interim document)”, which was an important first step to move the 2030 Agenda forward (Government of Canada, 2019). Besides other targets, goal 17.14, referred to as “Policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD)”(OECD, 2016, 2017a, 2017b), calls on the importance of policy coherence for sustainable development as key means of implementation of SDGs (UN, 2015). The interim document also mentions that it is the shared responsibility of all levels of government to work towards sustainable development in Canada (Government of Canada, 2019).

Research Question
The primary focus of this paper is to analyze the tensions and coherence between the proposed funding model for higher education institutions in Ontario and SDGs set by Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy.

Literature Review:

Performance-based funding model, in varying forms and mechanisms, has already been working in 35 states in the USA, many countries in Europe (Germany, France, Sweden, Ireland, Scotland, Netherland, Denmark, Belgium, United Kingdom, Austria, Finland), Australia, New Zealand and Japan (De Boer et al., 2015). It has been introduced and implemented by different governments to achieve objectives like improving the accountability of higher education institutions (A. Li, 2018; Polatajko, 2011), improving quality of education (De Boer et al., 2015; Ziskin et al., 2014), and meeting certain political and economic priorities (Ellis, 2016; McLendon & Hearn, 2013). However, this model has also resulted into conflicting consequences like reducing university autonomy (Dougherty et al., 2012, 2014b, 2016; Jenkins et al., 2008), education quality (Dougherty et al., 2014a; A. Li, 2018, Lahr et al., 2014), and increased equity concerns (Dougherty & Natow, 2019; A. Li, 2019; Ziskin et al., 2018). This review has explained how certain policies were implemented and enacted in a way quite different from what has been perceived by the policymakers (Levinson et al., 2009; Winton & Pollock, 2016).

Discussion

Since the announcement of this policy last year in April 2019, many stakeholders have raised their concerns around this funding model and its possible consequences. Canadian Association of Universities (CAUT) in an official statement mentioned that, “Reliance on performance metrics can violate academic freedom, interfere with collegial governance, hiring, performance assessment, tenure and promotion decisions, compensation, working conditions, as well as disciplinary and termination actions.”(Canadian Association of University Teachers, 2020). OCUFA (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations) in its 2022 pre-budget submission dated January 26, 2022, titled as, “Strong, stable funding for Ontario’s universities; An investment in the future” (OCUFA, 2022), mentioned the proposed funding model as “unstable” (p. 3), “inequitable” (p. 3), reckless (p. 9), “flawed” (p. 9), “risky” (p.10 ), and “destabilizing” (p. 10). The submission highlighted that the proposed funding model will not solve any funding challenges that higher education institutions are currently facing in the post-pandemic time. On the contrary, it will worsen the funding crisis, by tying 60% of funding (over $3 billion across all universities and colleges) to a set of performance metrics, most of which institutions have either little or no control over.
As per the Wellesley Institute’s report on “UN Sustainable Development Goals: How Does Ontario Measure Up?” (2019), some of the policy changes implemented by Ontario include a performance-based funding model for universities that will impose a new condition on university funding (Fideli, 2019), increased high school class sizes (Powers, 2019), and reduced funding to the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) with changed repayment conditions (Jones, 2019). The report has suggested that these funding changes pertaining to post-secondary institutions will negatively affect the quality of education, accessibility of educational opportunities, extension programs for racialized youth, and support/specialized programs restricting career opportunities for students. The implementation of performance-based funding can negatively affect the purpose of higher education. As there are some valuable degrees offered by universities that may not necessarily result into high-salaried jobs, this funding allocation could force universities from offering those degrees and fields of studies (Hamidian, 2019).

Conclusion
This paper analyses the tensions and coherence between the performance-based funding policy, proposed by the Provincial government for HEIs in Ontario and Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy, which has been published and advocated by the Federal government. The study looked at the policy documents, and secondary sources about two policies for HEIs in Ontario. The literature review has already highlighted the negative consequences of performance-based funding model on the quality of education and equity concerns. Apparently, the provincial funding policy seems to be conflicting with the Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy and may create tensions for the implementation of Agenda 2030 by negatively affecting the quality of education and policy coherence required for the sustainable development of Canada. Policies pertaining to higher education sector should be aligned at all levels of government to avoid confusion and tensions for those who are required to implement and enact those policies, otherwise, these policies will hamper the implementation of SDGs towards Canada’s sustainable development.

Author

• Atiqa Marium, Western University, Faculty of Education