Government Funding and Regulation: Impact on Quality

1
Government Funding and Regulation Impact on
Quality
Quality 2006 Innovations in Quality Measurement
in Post-Secondary Education

• Ken Snowdon

This presentation has Notes. Please see Notes
Page under View in Powerpoint
2

• Without a Roadmap
• Government Funding and Regulation of Canadas
  Universities and Colleges
• Canadian Policy Research Networks
• December 2005

3
Outline

• Key Considerations
• Favourable Conditions for Quality
• Realities
• Creating a Favourable Environment for Improved
  Quality

4
Key Considerations

• Government funding mechanisms and the regulatory
  environments are quite different from province to
  province reflecting.
• History, local circumstance, demographics etc.
• Federal involvement - research, training, student
  assistance - cuts across provincial boundaries
• with mixed results

5
Key Considerations
6
Favourable Conditions for Quality

• Funding
• Adequate funding that recognizes differences in
  institutional mission, activity levels (i.e.
  enrolment) and program mix
• Recognize different views about adequate

7
RealityFunding

• In 6 of 10 provinces funding in 2004/05 was below
  funding levels in the early 90s FUNDING FROM
  ALL SOURCES
• In most provinces provincial funding has been
  characterized by reduced grants (in real terms
  per student) and increased tuition butvaries
• Significant increase in research funding
  federal / provincial - with associated indirect
  costs
• Limited increases in core operating grants

8
Indexed Change in TOTAL Funding per Full-time
Student(All funds, all sources of income,
adjusted for inflation)1992100
9
Indexed (relative to 1990 base year)
Post-secondary PROVINCIAL Grants (in 2003 Real
Dollars) (operating, capital, research) NOT
ADJUSTED FOR ENROLMENT
10
Favourable Conditions for Quality

• Funding mechanisms
• Predictable / Stable - to encourage and
  recognize the long-term nature of university
  human resource and program commitments
• Transparent / Simple (accountable)
• Equitable similar for similar activities

11
Reality Funding mechanisms

• More complicated and constant change
• Matching funds
• Earmarked envelopes (with competitions)
• Performance Funds
• pseudo competitive
• Capital allocations
• Research CFI, indirect cost, etc.

12
RealityFunding mechanisms

• Federal re-investment mixed results
• Millennium Foundation
• CFI
• CRC faculty renewal
• SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR
• Indirect costs
• Created funding pressures on provinces and led to
  active substitution - taken into account when
  setting provincial operating grant levels
• Within institutions greater emphasis placed on
  research
• hodge podge student assistance

13
Favourable Conditions for Quality

• Regulatory environment
• Clear expectations from government
• Encourage competition
• Encourage fund-raising / entrepreneurial activity
• Clear, consistent rules of the game
• For government funding (operating, research)
• For tuition policy
• For student assistance
• For program approval
• Entry into higher education market

14
RealityRegulatory mechanisms

• Complex tuition frameworks
• De-regulation, cost-recovery, tuition
  reimbursement, program differentials, freezes,
  caps, roll-backs, mandatory student assistance
  provisions
• Bewildering student assistance changes
• Introduction of new credentials applied
  degrees - and new institutions
• Changing rules of the game unexpected
  consequences
• Business Plans, Service Plans, Multi-year
  agreements, Performance Agreements,
  Accountability Agreements, etc.,

15
Reality.

• Whatever happened to keep it simple?

16
Reality impacts

• Action follow the money
• Greater emphasis on research
• Predictable consequences for undergraduate
  programs
• haves and have-not disciplines
• Tendency to alter internal resource allocation
  models to reflect income opportunities
• haves and have-nots
• Extraordinarily difficult planning environment

17
Reality.

• Post-secondary funding from all sources has hit
  all-time highs 30 billion... yet it is seen as
  not adequate to deal with
• Major expansion of enrolment and research
• Continuing expectation for more accessibility,
  higher quality, more research

18
Favourable Environment for Improved Quality

• What are you trying to do? Goals
• What do you need to get there?
• Resources, Tools, Strategies
• How would you know you are making progress?
  Accountability public reporting/indictators

19
Favourable Environment for Improved Quality

• Define access, quality and research goals
• Recognize the need for adequate resources from
  somewhere public and/or private
• Adopt a multi-year perspective
• Keep the funding mechanisms few and simple
• Improve the climate of trust between fed/prov
  and between prov/institutions

20
Favourable Environment for Improved Quality

• Accountability frameworks that recognize
  institutional differentiation
• performance REPORTING
• Strengthen role of institutional governing bodies

21
Summary

• The diversity of post-secondary education in
  Canada creates special challenges that need to be
  recognized when discussing quality
• Adequate funding, simplified funding mechanisms,
  and clear, consistent rules of the game will
  help create an environment conducive to improving
  quality.
• Performance reporting and the full engagement of
  Governing Boards

22
Thank You!

• Ken Snowdon
• Snowdon Associates Inc.
• www.snowdonandassociates.ca