Education should NOT be a privelege
By Mark Veerkamp and Canadian Federation Of Students B.c. Chairperson
“If you thought our hospitals were underfunded, you should see our universities.” – Pierre Pettigrew, then federal minister responsible for education, 1998.
The amount of new federal funding for universities and colleges since 1998 – zero.
In the 1920s and 1930s, universities were the training ground for the elite. High tuition fees and exclusive admission policies ensured that only children of the wealthy could afford higher education. While most people think such a system is now an archaic relic of the past, governments have changed course, leading us down a path to the same system that left the majority of Canadians out in the cold.
The vision of elite universities has no shortage of disciples: Ontario Premier Mike Harris, newspaper magnate Conrad Black, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and former UBC President David Strangway among them. In the 1990s, the federal government cut more than $7 billion from post-secondary education funding, the vast majority of which was sucked out of universities or colleges, and out of students. Provinces like Ontario have gone even further and cut their own contributions as well as passing on the federal cuts. In some programs in Ontario, tuition fees have increased by 400 per cent.
The result of funding cutbacks and rising fees? Dropping enrollment.
Since 1991, enrollment across the country has fallen by 4.4 per cent. In contrast, in B.C., where we have had a tuition fee freeze for five of those years, enrollment has climbed 10 per cent.
Elitists like David Strangway smell blood. Recently, he announced his intention to build a university in B.C. that will charge students more than $20,000 per year and provide the “best” education those students can buy. Since then, a flood of editorials have appeared in major newspapers touting the virtue of private universities, suggesting they are not elitist, and condemning the public system for failing to meet the standards of modern society.
Tuition fee increases have had a dramatic impact on the ability of people with limited means to attend post-secondary education. The student loans system, despite the fact that B.C. now offers grants up to the fourth year, effectively indentures students to the banks. Fewer and fewer people are able to take on high debt, now averaging over $25,000 per borrower.
Increasing numbers of critics argue that the tuition fee freeze hurts the quality of education and they don’t let the lack of solid evidence stop them. They intentionally set up a false debate between quality and accessibility of post-secondary education to further their arguments for elitist universities.
While most Canadians believe that a quality education system includes real accessibility for Canadians from all backgrounds, some believe that a university or college that is only be attended by the rich can be a quality institution. What good is a university if only a handful of people can afford to go?
The elitists also argue that there is a direct correlation between the tuition fee freeze, a measure to improve accessibility, and the quality of education. If quality is defined by the ability of an institution to exclude students from low and middle-income backgrounds, then they may be right. The freeze has been the most important policy for a whole generation of students in ensuring that they have access to university.
Moreover, the freeze has only started to counter the tuition fee increases experienced in the last 10 years. Fees have more than doubled across the country and going back even farther, have tripled since 1980/81.
Under the tuition fee freeze, the Maclean’s university ranking continues to place B.C. universities very highly.
Over the last five years SFU has enjoyed three years of first place rankings and two years in second. UBC has also placed very highly, along with UVic. This year, SFU placed second (ranking second in operating budgets), UBC rose a place, UVic remained the same and UNBC rose several places – all under a four year tuition fee freeze. If the freeze was to have impacted quality, wouldn’t we have seen an across the board decline in rankings?
If high tuition fees mean a better quality of education, we would expect to see Ontario, Alberta and other high cost provinces kicking our ass, but that hasn’t happened. In fact, when you talk to students in Ontario, they are complaining about – you guessed it – over-crowded classrooms, out of date equipment, etc. Logic would dictate that tuition fees doubling in Ontario would lead to the doubling of the quality of education, but it just hasn’t happened. What has happened in Ontario is that admission standards have been dropped and fees have skyrocketed, turning it into a system based on wallet size, not merit.
The problem is declining federal funding, not the tuition fee freeze, and we shouldn’t misdirect our energies. There is a federal crisis in funding that requires a national solution.
Other jurisdictions are realizing the need to expand funding of universities and colleges and are moving in that direction.
In the last few years, the United States has increased funding for public universities and colleges by 20 per cent while in Canada, funding has dropped 20 per cent. Ireland has recently eliminated tuition fees and the majority of our competitor countries do not charge tuition fees as a conscious effort to develop the population in a knowledge-based society.
In Canada, it’s hard to imagine what the federal government is thinking. Their own agencies tell them that 70 per cent of future jobs will require some kind of university or college, yet high fees are restricting access to that education. Although we have a tuition fee freeze in B.C. the cost of education is still far too high for many people.
High school is no longer the standard for the majority of Canadians. In a recent poll published in the Ottawa Citizen, 94 per cent of Canadians believe that post-secondary education will be the key to employment success over the next ten years. Sixty-seven per cent also believe that the cost and accessibility of universities and colleges will worsen.
We are seeing a rapidly growing gap between rich and poor, and reducing access to higher education will only make that worse.
The Business Summit (who recommended an end to the tuition fee freeze and a lower minimum wage for youth – all endorsed by the B.C. Liberal Party), Mike Harris, Conrad Black and others just don’t care. But we should. We are the ones who will be inheriting this province and country and I want to see it run better. If we want any chance of success, we are going to have to increase funding for colleges and universities.
But this funding can’t come from fees. Increased fees mean reduced access and the consequences of an undereducated population will be profound and permanent.
We need to pursue a different vision than David Strangway, one that sees a well-funded public post-secondary education system as a key component of a healthy society. That’s why on February 2, thousands of students from St. John’s to Victoria will be making a nationwide demonstration for public education as a part of Access 2000, sending a message to the federal government to reinvest in public education.
In Vancouver, a rally has been organized for 2 p.m. at the Art Gallery that will be a mix of speeches, art, music and dancing. Access 2000 has been endorsed by a wide cross-section of society including faculty at universities and colleges, support staff, trade unions, high school teachers, and even Oxfam Canada. Even the City of Richmond has endorsed the Access 2000 campaign’s call for increased funding.
Over the next five years, the federal government will be accumulating a surplus of $95 billion and if they have any sense they will put some of it back. If they can find money to bail out rich hockey players and club owners, then they can afford to invest in the youth of this country.
