I rarely say this about a Jane Taber article, but her Christmas Eve piece on Prime Minister Harper’s stewarding of federal-provincial relations was mildly fascinating. Her thesis is that Harper is gradually starting to impose his vision of water-tight federalism and has a long-term plan to get the federal government to back off and let provinces get on with doing whatever they are supposed to do under Article 92 of the Constitution.
So, what’s the impact on higher education? I doubt there’s reason to worry about the federal commitment to research – Harper’s attachment to the innovation agenda seems reasonably strong though it’s possible the budget review might have some nasty surprises for SSHRC. The government’s commitment to keeping 25% of the Canada Social Transfer notionally “reserved” for education is also probably safe (to the extent that matters in the slightest).
But student loans are another story altogether; it’s not outside the realm of possibility that these could see a major shake-up over the next four years. For starters, they are after all the ultimate fed-prov governance nightmare. Part-federal, part-provincial, each clutching their own portion of the program so tightly that integrated communications programs that students can actually understand remain a challenge even after 47 years in operation.
Then there’s the fact that there’s an enormous amount of equalization built into the program, which always seems to irk the Tories. Per capita, students out east are getting substantially more aid than students in Ontario and the west because of higher borrowing rates (since default rates are also higher, that aid also costs more).
What might a Harper-ized student aid system look like? It would be relatively easy to change the program into a system of block-transfers to provinces, and one could do so without doing violence to the principles of CSLP providing provinces agreed to three simple principles in return:
– a common need assessment system to ensure equal treatment for students across the country
– all student aid to be portable to ensure mobility
– visibility for the federal government’s contribution (OSAP to become COSAP, for instance)
In return for just those three commitments, Harper and co. could get out of the business of handling student loans and just cut big cheques to the provinces who in turn will use the money to create simpler, integrated programs that are easier to understand, that work for students and that align with local political priorities. And in a number of ways, the system would be better than the one we have now.
It probably won’t happen; Harper’s not aching for a largely symbolic fight about education and fiscal federalism. But don’t rule it out.
Tweet this post
One of my concerns about the provincial and federal student loans programs is that they do not adequately address the growing trend for adultsto return to school. The ‘need’ for a post secondary education, higher levels of post secondary education and periodic re-skilling is increasing and undeniable. (By ‘need’ I refer to the ability to get and keep a job, not necessarily the skills required in the job itself, which is an entirely different story). If we accept what the OECD and other bodies are telling us, many adults will have to return to school. And they are doing so. Currently, the loans system does not reflect that reality.
I am one of those adults. At 45, after raising my children alone as a single mother, I returned to graduate school when the industry in which I was working was collapsing. The application asked about how much money my parents have to contribute. It inadequately reflected the costs of supporting my children (who are now in post-secondary and Gr 12). It asked me how much money I would make in the summer. It counts my RRSPs and pension monies which are locked away and to which I have no access. in its determination of my ability to fund myself. Retirement and pension monies should not be counted as assets when determinging the financial need of the individual.
I would like to see a loan system that more accuratey reflects the need for longer and recurrent post-secondary education and one that acknowledges that education is not just a private good but also a public good: One that truly does promote equal access (access now is VERY skewed for the advantaged) for everyone.