Ministère de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités. Sous-ministre. Édifice Mowat Queen s Park Toronto ON M7A 1L2

Transcription

1 Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Deputy Minister Mowat Block Queen s Park Toronto ON M7A 1L2 Ministère de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités Sous-ministre Édifice Mowat Queen s Park Toronto ON M7A 1L2 Memorandum To: Executive Heads of Provincially Assisted Universities and Hearst College Presidents of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology President and CEO of Colleges Ontario President and CEO of Council of Ontario Universities From: Deborah Newman Deputy Minister Date: November 29, 2013 Subject: Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education and Strategic Mandate Agreement Process The purpose of this memorandum is to provide to institutions Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education, communicate its relationship to the Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMA) process, as well as outline next steps on enrolment planning and program approvals. Differentiation Policy Framework The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has adopted a policy of differentiation to better advance the government s vision and priorities for postsecondary education, while ensuring institutions can reinforce their distinctive strengths. The overarching goals for differentiation in Ontario are to: Support student success and access to a high quality Ontario postsecondary education; Increase the global competitiveness of Ontario s postsecondary education; Build on and help focus the well-established strengths of Ontario colleges and universities while avoiding unnecessary duplication; and Maintain an efficient and financially sustainable postsecondary education system. The attached document, Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education, is the foundation for the Ministry s decision-making and ongoing dialogue with institutions, students and all stakeholders going forward. /2

2 -2- I would like to thank you for your comments on the draft version of the Framework that was shared with you in September. Over 300 suggestions for metrics were provided by the sector. As you know, metrics provide the evidence-base on which to have informed discussions, and it is important to strike a balance between system-wide and institution-specific metrics. In many cases only proxy measures are currently available. Following the release of the Differentiation Policy Framework, the Ministry will be engaging the sector on refining and developing more robust metrics. Over time, the Ministry will align its policy, processes and funding levers with both the Framework and the SMAs to ensure coherent decision-making. To support the first cycle of SMAs, the Ministry will begin to focus on graduate space allocations and program approvals. One of the most influential levers available to the Ministry to drive differentiation is funding. The Ministry does not anticipate immediate changes but intends to engage with the sector on this topic, including how to move towards an approach that can be more effective in supporting outcomes. The Ministry is committed to ensuring that decisions regarding any changes to the funding frameworks are made in consultation with universities and colleges. Strategic Mandate Agreements The Differentiation Policy Framework will inform discussions with the Special Advisors on the implementation of the SMAs. SMA discussions with the Special Advisors are expected to begin in January Additional details on this process will be provided from the offices of Dr. Paul Genest (Special Advisor: Universities) and Sue Herbert (Special Advisor: Colleges) in the coming weeks. SMAs with all publicly funded colleges and universities in Ontario will be in place by March 31, The duration of the first cycle of SMAs will be three years ( to ). Updating 2012 Strategic Mandate Agreement Proposals Institutions will have the opportunity to update their 2012 SMA proposals. Institutions choosing to update their submissions are requested to provide the following: Institutional mandate, mission, and vision statements; Identification of activities that profile institutional strengths in each component of differentiation; and A maximum of 3 institution-specific metrics within each component. If institutionspecific metrics are not yet available, institutions will also have an opportunity to submit institution-specific metrics during the SMA discussion process /3

3 Institutions are asked to limit a resubmission to 8 10 pages, including appendices. -3- In order to support the SMA discussions process, all institutions are further requested to provide the following: Institutional Enrolment Projections (see below) Program Areas of Strength and Strategic Growth Focus (see below) Request for Institutional Enrolment Projections Since , full-time enrolment in Ontario s colleges and universities funded through PSE operating grants increased by 160,000 (over 40%), more than in any decade in the Province s history, with enrolment increases varying significantly across sectors, regions and individual institutions in accordance with demand and demographic trends. While some growth is still anticipated, the Ministry is forecasting slower increases through at the undergraduate and college levels. This has the potential for translating into limited net growth province-wide for undergraduate and college enrolment for several years after Two primary factors underpin the anticipated slow-down in enrolment growth. First the year old population is expected to hit a peak in Second, secondary school enrolment in Ontario has declined by 4% since Because demographic patterns vary considerably across regions, some institutions may experience difficulty maintaining enrolment levels in the medium term. In the 2011 Budget, the Province announced a commitment to support an enrolment increase across the sector of 60,000 by above the level reported for , consistent with MTCU s projections at that time. The forecast has been updated periodically to incorporate more recent information. The outlook through was revised downward, based primarily on lower than expected enrolment in Incremental full-time eligible for funding enrolment between and is now projected at approximately 52,500 as noted in the table below. MTCU Five-Year Enrolment Projection ( to , Eligible Full-Time Headcounts) Sector a a pa a actual, pa preliminary actual Source: Internal MTCU estimate Actual Growth to Remaining Forecasted Growth ( to ) Total Growth ( to ) College (Including Nursing) 178, , ,000 7,500 9,000 16,500 Undergraduate 319, , ,500 13,000 20,000 33,000 Graduate 36,000 36,000 36, ,500 3,000 PSE Total 534, , ,000 21,000 31,500 52,500 /4

4 -4- Assuming no changes in the normal flow-through and year-to-year retention rates at an aggregate level by sector, the enrolment projected by would be realized with annual net increases in the respective entering year cohorts of 1,800 across the entire university sector for undergraduates and 1,100 across the college sector in , and As part of the SMA process and as noted initially in the draft Differentiation Framework shared last September, all institutions are requested to provide a medium-term forecast of planned enrolment through using the attached tables (see Appendix 1 for universities and Appendix 2 for colleges), which should be consistent with the most recent enrolment information shared with the Ministry (i.e., November enrolment submissions for ). While not included in the MTCU projections provided above, anticipated enrolment of students not funded through postsecondary education operating grants (including international enrolment) is also requested. Decisions regarding future enrolment levels will be part of the SMA discussion process and will be guided by system level Ministry enrolment projections, demographic trends, and recent provincial growth planning information. An important element of this strategic enrolment management process for the university sector will be the allocation of spaces on a multi-year basis for future growth at the graduate level. The metrics identified in the Research and Graduate Education component, along with institutionspecific metrics, will inform the allocation of spaces as part of the SMA discussions. Program Approvals While the SMA process is underway, the Ministry has decided to implement a temporary suspension of college and university program approvals to ensure that new and expanded programs are consistent with institutional mandates and strengths while avoiding unnecessary duplication. During this time period, the Ministry will not approve some existing program approval requests and any new requests in the following areas: o o o New Ontario college credentials; New college degree programs in applied areas of study; and New non-core university undergraduate and graduate programs. College degree consent renewal applications will continue to be received and processed. The suspension is effective the date of this memo. More details relating to the temporary suspension of college and university program approvals will be communicated shortly. /5

5 -5- This communication will outline a small number of exemptions, where applicable. For example, programs that the ministry has made a previous commitment to, or that have been outlined in approved Teacher Education Program Change Agreements, can be submitted for review, where required. Additionally, starting in , and in support of the new SMAs, college and university funding approval and ministerial consent processes will be revised. The revised program approvals process will include consideration of institutional strengths agreed upon in the final SMA. The sector will be consulted on these changes. In order to complement the institutional enrolment projections request, and within the context of potential limited growth, institutions are asked to provide up to 10 program areas of strength, and 3-5 program areas that will be a strategic focus, growing institutional strength in the next three years. The Ministry asks that all institutions complete the program areas of strength and strategic focus tables provided in Appendix 3 of this memo. Financial Sustainability As part of SMA and Differentiation Framework discussions over the last few months, both the Ministry and the institutions have identified a number of possible metrics. Once the SMAs negotiations are completed, the Ministry will engage with the sector to refine and finalize the following: University Sector College Sector Possible Metrics: Possible Metrics: Surplus / Deficit position Accumulated Surplus / Deficit Surplus / Deficit position Accumulated Surplus / Deficit Primary Reserve Ratio / Net Assets to Expenses Interest Burden Percentage / Debt Servicing Debt Burden (Debt to Revenue or Expenses) Viability Ratio / Total Debt to Asset Ratio Net Income to Revenue Ratio Net Assets to Expenses Ratio Debt Servicing Ratio Debt Burden (Debt to Revenue or Expenses) Total Debt to Asset Ratio Net Income to Revenue Ratio /6

6 University Sector College Sector Pension Plan Funded Status (Surplus/Deficit, Projected Growth in Funding Obligations) Compliance with BPS Accountability Act Proportion of Spending on Non- Instruction/Research Activities (optional) System-wide metric for Pension Plan Funded Status (and the projected changes in funding obligations) Compliance with BPS Accountability Act Reporting Institutions will be expected to report annually on metrics identified in their SMAs. In , the Multi-Year Accountability Agreement (MYAA) report-back will be adjusted and serve as the interim reporting mechanism for the SMAs. The Ministry will review elements in the report-back template to reduce duplication and reporting burden. Institutions will start submitting the revised reporting template in 2015, reporting on progress made in Meaningful reporting by colleges and universities continues to be an integral part of the government s relationship with institutions. The Ministry will work with the sector to phase in consolidated and streamlined reports. It is anticipated that the first phase of streamlined reports will be available for institutional use beginning in early Next Steps and Timelines The successful implementation of SMAs requires the active collaboration between the Ministry and the sector. In anticipation of the work ahead of us, please see outlined below the next steps and timelines. Activity Timeline Release of Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework November 29, SMA submissions updated to reflect Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework Institutional Enrolment Projections Program Areas of Strength and Strategic Focus tables Special Advisors commence discussions on SMAs with institutions Submissions due December 20, 2013 (Optional) Submissions due December 20, 2013 January, 2014 Strategic Mandate Agreements are finalized and signed March 31, 2014 /7

7 -7- Please send all questions to Ivonne Mellozzi, Senior Policy Advisor, Deputy Minister s Office, at Ivonne.Mellozzi@ontario.ca. All documents (re-submissions, enrolment projections, and program strengths) should be sent to PSEsubmissions@ontario.ca by December 20, Thank you for your ongoing commitment and continued collaboration as we work together to transform Ontario s postsecondary education system. Sincerely, Deborah Newman Deputy Minister Enclosures: Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education Technical Addendum to Framework c: Marie-Lison Fougère, Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy and Programs Division Nancy Naylor, Assistant Deputy Minister Postsecondary Education Division Dr. Paul Genest, Special Advisor: Strategic Mandate Agreements (Universities) Sue Herbert, Special Advisor: Strategic Mandate Agreements (Colleges) Paddy Buckley, Director Strategic Policy Transformation Branch Chris Monahan, Director Research and Planning Branch Linda Hawke, Director Postsecondary Accountability Branch Didem Proulx, Director Postsecondary Finance and Information Management Branch

8 Appendix 1: University Strategic Enrolment Projections Undergraduate Master's Ph.D. Table 1: University Baseline Full-Time Headcounts (Eligible and Ineligible) Baseline PSE projection for the university as a whole. These should include additional capacity which has already been funded through capital projects currently underway. These projections should not include the impact of the proposed projects, or assume provincial approval of future projects or associated policy decisions (e.g., program approvals, development of new campuses, etc.). Actuals Eligible Students Preliminary Projected Total Eligible Full-Time Headcounts Undergraduate Master's Actuals Preliminary Ineligible Students Projected Ph.D. Total Ineligible Full-Time Headcounts Total Full-time University Headcount (Eligible + Ineligible) Please provide baseline enrolment growth projections only. All further growth aspirations should be outlined in Table 2.

9 Undergraduate Master's Eligible Students Actuals Preliminary Projected Ph.D. Total Eligible Full-Time Headcounts Undergraduate Master's Table 2: Projected University Full-Time Headcounts (Eligible and Ineligible) PSE projection for the university as a whole. In addition to the baseline projections in Table 1, these projections should include the impact of proposed projects and provincial approval of future projects or associated policy decisions (e.g., program approvals, development of new campuses, etc). If more than one significant policy decisions is assumed in enrolment planning more than one copy of table 2 can be included. Ineligible Students Actuals Preliminary Projected Ph.D. Total Ineligible Full-Time Headcounts Total Full-time University Headcount (Eligible + Ineligible) Please indicate any assumptions made during the development of the enrolment projections stated above. For example, please note what assumptions have been made related to: Provincial decisions related to capital funding and/or new campuses; Program approvals; and/or, Any other assumptions made.

10 Certificate/Diploma Appendix 2: College Strategic Enrolment Projections Table 1: College Baseline Full-Time Headcounts (Eligible and Ineligible) Baseline projection for the college as a whole, excluding Second Career clients. These should include additional capacity which has already been funded through capital projects currently underway. These projections should not include the impact of introducing three-year degrees; the impact proposed projects; or, assume provincial approval of future projects or associated policy decisions (e.,g three-year degrees, program approvals, development of new campuses, etc.). Actuals Preliminary Eligible Students Projected Degree Total Eligible Full-time College Headcounts Certificate/Diploma Ineligible Students Actuals Preliminary Projected Degree Total Ineligible Full-time College Headcounts Total Full-time College Headcount (Eligible + Ineligible) Please provide baseline enrolment growth projections only. All further growth aspirations should be outlined in Table 2.

11 Table 2: Projected College Full-Time Headcounts (Eligible and Ineligible) Enrolment projection for the college as a whole, excluding Second Career clients. In addition to the baseline projections in Table 1, these projections should include the impact of proposed projects and provincial approval of future projects or associated policy decisions (e.,g program approvals, development of new campuses, etc). If more than one significant policy decisions is assumed in enrolment planning more than one copy of table 2 can be included. Certificate/Diploma Actuals Preliminary Projected Degree Total Eligible Full-time College Headcounts Certificate/Diploma Eligible Students Ineligible Students Actuals Preliminary Projected Degree Total Ineligible Full-time College Headcounts Total Full-time College Headcount (Eligible + Ineligible) Please indicate any assumptions made during the development of the enrolment projections stated above. For example, please note what assumptions have been made related to: Provincial decisions related to capital funding and/or new campuses; Program approvals; and/or, Any other assumptions made.

12 Appendix 3: Identifying Institutional Program Strengths and Strategic Areas of Focus In SMA proposals, colleges and universities have been asked to identify activities that profile their institution s strengths. The following tables are intended to help demonstrate the link between those identified areas of institutional strength and program areas both current and future. In the first table, please identify up to 10 areas of program strength for your institution. Please describe the rationale used to select these program areas. In the second table, and within the context of limited future enrolment growth, please identify 3-5 specific program areas that you plan to build upon to further enhance your institution s identified strengths and provide a rationale for each. This information will be used to inform SMA discussions about existing and proposed areas of program strength. It will also assist the ministry and the Strategic Mandate Advisor in seeing alignments between institutional strengths, planning and program offerings. Information outlined is not meant to be an exhaustive list of programs offerings. Current Areas of Program Strength Please identify up to 10 areas of program strength for your institution. Please describe the rationale used to select these programs. This information will assist in establishing current programming strengths and areas of expertise. Institutional Program Strengths (maximum 10) Program Area Total Full-time Headcount (Eligible) () Rationale

13 Proposed Areas of Program Strength Within the context of limited enrolment growth, please identify 3-5 program areas that will be a strategic focus in the next three years. Please be specific when describing your rationale for focusing on these areas. Programs for Growth or to be Established (maximum 5) Program Area Total Full-time Headcount (Eligible) # ( ) Target Total Fulltime Headcount (Eligible) as a proportion of institutional Total Full-time Headcount (Eligible) Planned New or Expanded Programs (including credential level) Rationale % ( )

14 O NTARIO S D IFFERENTIATIO N P O LICY F RAMEWO RK F O R P O STSECO N D ARY E D UCATIO N November 2013

15 The Ontario Public Service endeavours to demonstrate leadership with respect to accessibility in Ontario. Our goal is to ensure that Ontario government services, products, and facilities are accessible to all our employees and to all members of the public we serve. This document, or the information that it contains, is available, on request, in alternative formats. Please forward all requests for alternative formats to ServiceOntario at (TTY: ). Une publication équivalente est disponible en français sous le titre suivant : Cadre stratégique de l Ontario pour la différenciation du système d éducation postsecondaire, 2013 This publication is also available on the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities website, at

16 Contents 1. Introduction Context for Change PSE Transformation through Differentiation 6 2. Ontario s Postsecondary Education System Vision Government Priorities Social and Economic Development High-Quality Educational Experience Financial Sustainability and Accountability Access for All Qualified Learners World-Class Research and Innovation Collaboration and Pathways for Students 8 3. Differentiation Policy Framework Purpose Goals Components of Differentiation Jobs, Innovation, and Economic Development Teaching and Learning Student Population Research and Graduate Education Program Offerings Institutional Collaboration to Support Student Mobility Strategic Enrolment and Financial Sustainability Strategic Enrolment Financial Sustainability Metrics Implementation Strategic Mandate Agreements Policy, Processes, and Funding Levers Accountability 17

17

18 1.1 Context for Change Over the past decade, the Government of Ontario has increased investment in postsecondary education significantly, including increasing operating grants by 80 per cent since These investments helped to improve access to postsecondary education, supported significant enrolment growth at universities and colleges, and drove community and economic development. The tremendous expansion of Ontario s postsecondary education system was made possible thanks to the commitment of our postsecondary education institutions to access, and their willingness to respond to the demand. The 2008 economic downturn and the ensuing precarious state of the global economy have made Ontario s fiscal environment challenging. Substantial new investment by the government at levels comparable to the previous decade is not feasible. Also, as enrolment growth is expected to slow in the near future so too will operating grant funding. With institutions costs outpacing growth in revenues from operating grants and tuition, existing cost structures are under pressure. Measures that help to mitigate these pressures are needed in order to ensure the continued sustainability of our postsecondary education system. We need to make changes to protect the gains of the last ten years, and to ensure that Ontario s postsecondary education continues to enjoy a productive and promising future. With active collaboration among government, key postsecondary stakeholders, and students, there is an opportunity to address the challenges facing the system. Central to this pursuit is the need to preserve and enhance educational quality and institutional excellence within a sustainable cost structure and to ensure postsecondary education in Ontario continues to have a strong impact on communities. This will require a careful balancing act between government stewardship and institutional leadership, and a strengthening of transparency and accountability between the government, institutions, and the public. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 5

19 1.2 PSE Transformation through Differentiation The government has opted for differentiation as a primary policy driver for the system. The government s policy of differentiation sets the foundation for broader postsecondary system transformation by publicly articulating government expectations and aligning the mandates of Ontario s colleges and universities with government priorities. Our overriding goals for a differentiated system are to build on and help focus the well-established strengths of institutions, enable them to operate together as complementary parts of a whole, and give students affordable access to the full continuum of vocational and academic educational opportunities that are required to prosper in our contemporary world. Over time, the government will align its policies, processes, and funding levers with Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework to steer the system in ways that align with provincial priorities while respecting the autonomy and supporting the strengths of our institutions. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education The government s goals, combined with a collaborative approach to differentiation, will help facilitate the achievement of targeted quality outcomes and enable institutions to respond to a broader range of learners whose diverse qualifications and skills are needed to support economic prosperity and build strong communities across Ontario. 6

20 Education System 2.1 Vision Ontario s colleges and universities will drive creativity, innovation, knowledge, and community engagement through teaching and research. They will put students first by providing the best possible learning experience for all qualified learners in an affordable and financially sustainable way, ensuring high quality, and globally competitive outcomes for students and Ontario s creative economy 2.2 Government Priorities Social and Economic Development Postsecondary education is an important driver of social and economic development. The government recognizes the valuable contributions that colleges and universities make towards job creation, enhanced productivity, and the vitality of communities and regions throughout the province. Postsecondary education also delivers significant social and economic benefits to individuals. Graduates of postsecondary education experience have improved labour market outcomes compared to those without higher education, including higher employment rates and greater earning levels over time. This is especially significant to ensuring Ontario s social development and economic prosperity High-Quality Educational Experience The Ontario government recognizes that high-quality teaching is tied to improved student outcomes. The government sees this as a key priority and is committed to ensuring that postsecondary education in Ontario provides students with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in their personal and career aspirations, and as engaged citizens. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 7

21 2.2.3 Financial Sustainability and Accountability The government is committed to working with colleges and universities on creating a financially sustainable, high-quality postsecondary education system in both the short and long term. This priority will help ensure that Ontarians have access to a full range of affordable, high-quality postsecondary education options, now and in the future Access for All Qualified Learners Recognizing the value of postsecondary education to an individual and to Ontario s future, the government will continue to build on the gains it has made in increasing access to higher education for all qualified students over the past decade. This also includes an ongoing commitment to making postsecondary education accessible on the basis of ability to learn, not ability to pay World-Class Research and Innovation Universities and colleges are engines of innovation that grow Ontario s knowledge economy through applied, commercialized, and pure research. The government is committed to supporting research and innovation to ensure that Ontario s postsecondary education system contributes to the economic success of the province. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education Collaboration and Pathways for Students The government is committed to supporting and improving collaboration to ensure that postsecondary education in Ontario provides a full continuum of relevant learning opportunities that can respond to the arising needs of students in their academic paths and career destinations. Innovative collaboration among institutions can provide enhanced opportunities for students, and maximize the impact of existing resources and avoid unnecessary duplication. 8

22 3.1 Purpose The Differentiation Policy Framework is the foundation for the ministry s decision making and ongoing dialogue with institutions, students, and all stakeholders going forward. 3.2 Goals The Differentiation Policy Framework provides a balanced and collaborative approach to better support the government s vision and priorities for postsecondary education, while supporting institutions in demonstrating leadership through their distinct contributions. The overarching goals for differentiation of Ontario s postsecondary education are to: 1. Support student success and access to a high-quality Ontario postsecondary education 2. Improve the global competitiveness of Ontario s postsecondary education system 3. Build on and help focus the well-established strengths of Ontario colleges and universities while avoiding unnecessary duplication 4. Maintain an efficient and financially sustainable postsecondary education system 3.3 Components of Differentiation Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework consists of six key components, which are outlined in the following section Jobs, Innovation, and Economic Development This component highlights institutions collaborative work with employers, community partners, and regions, or at a global level, to establish their role in fostering social and economic Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 9

23 development, serving the needs of the economy and labour market, and promoting a culture of entrepreneurship. This may include, but is not limited to, the impacts of institutions commercialization, innovation, and applied research activity on social and economic development. Differentiation strengthens alignment between regional development needs and defined institutional mandates. This will advance innovative partnerships and programs that serve the distinct Ontario communities to which institutions are connected, as well as broader provincial needs. This alignment will ensure that students graduate with skills that respond to local and provincial labour market needs and contribute to social development. In areas that align with institutional capacity, these partnerships may be global in scope Teaching and Learning This component captures institutional strengths in program delivery methods that expand learning options for students and improve their learning experience and career preparedness. This may include, but is not limited to, experiential, entrepreneurial, workintegrated, and online learning. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education Institutions will focus on areas of educational strength and specialty so that collectively they offer the maximum choice, flexibility, and quality experience to Ontario students. This includes institutions strengthening their innovative teaching approaches, such as technology-enabled learning and experiential learning opportunities, to provide students with a twenty-first century learning experience Student Population This component recognizes the importance of improving access, retention, and success for underrepresented groups and expanding opportunities for francophones to learn in French, as articulated in the Reaching Higher Access to Opportunity Strategy. Institutional specialization will play a key role in increasing the postsecondary education participation and success of Aboriginal students, students with disabilities, first generation students, as 10

24 well as expanding programming opportunities for francophone students. In addition, institutions will continue to offer a learning environment that supports and is enriched by a diverse profile of learners Research and Graduate Education This component highlights the breadth and depth of research undertaken by Ontario universities, and articulates specific university research strengths. This profiles research activity and capacity that is strongly linked to graduate education. Future investments in graduate education will be focused to improve research capacity and performance in universities areas of research strength, helping to build on the world-class research already underway. In time, strategic support on a broader scale will strengthen universities global competitiveness in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, further raising Ontario s profile as a globally recognized research hub Program Offerings This component articulates the breadth of programming, enrolment, and credentials offered, along with program areas of institutional strength/specialization, including any vocationally-oriented mandates. This component also recognizes institutions that provide bilingual and/or French-language programming for students. Encouraging institutions to focus on areas of program strength will help to define their role in the postsecondary education system and better coordinate program offerings at a system level. This will help promote quality programming that is responsive to student needs and regional demands, and avoid unnecessary duplication Institutional Collaboration to Support Student Mobility This component profiles partnerships between institutions that ensure students have access to a continuum of learning opportunities in a coordinated system. This may include, but is not limited to, credit transfer pathways and collaborative or joint programs between or within sectors. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 11

25 Greater collaboration between and within sectors will work to maximize recognition for prior learning and strengthen pathways so that students can better navigate learning options within a differentiated postsecondary education system. 3.4 Strategic Enrolment and Financial Sustainability In addition to the six components of differentiation, Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework identifies two key directions that help support the differentiation process Strategic Enrolment Discussions about future enrolment levels will be part of the differentiation process and will be informed by system-level ministry enrolment projections, demographics, and recent provincial growth planning decisions that affect capacity, including capital. Working with institutions on managing enrolment growth will help to align institutions enrolment planning with provincial priorities. Ultimately, coordinated growth and capacity planning will enhance responsiveness to shifting trends in demand and demographics, further helping to protect the quality of postsecondary education from periods of slower growth while meeting local access needs and system-level forecasts. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education Financial Sustainability The ministry recognizes that underlying the differentiation process is a commitment and action towards ensuring financial sustainability at the institution and system level. Institutions will be expected to provide measures of financial health, including pension plan status and compliance with the BPS Accountability Act. Transparent reporting standards using comparable measures of financial health and administrative efficiency will enhance institutions ability to focus investments in areas of institutional strength. Collectively, this will drive the system towards greater productivity and will ensure postsecondary education in Ontario has a secure future. 12

26 3.5 Metrics Metrics provide the evidence-base on which to have informed discussions, and it is important to strike a balance between system-wide and institution-level metrics: a. Institution-specific metrics identified by individual colleges and universities. Institution-specific metrics are optional, but help identify unique strengths. These are rooted in historical data to enable measurement of progress over time, and are linked to the institutional internal planning processes. b. System-wide metrics identified by the ministry. These metrics, based on current data collected or already available to the ministry, are applicable to all institutions and form the basis for measuring progress. The following table outlines, in detail, the approach to metrics in each component (additional information on definitions and technical details for each metric can be found in the Technical Addendum). Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 13

27 Differentiation Framework Metrics Differentiation Framework Components Jobs, Innovation, and Economic Development Metrics As part of forming an institution s profile and measuring progress in this component, the ministry will use the following system-wide metrics for all institutions: Graduate employment rates Employer satisfaction rates Number of graduates employed full-time in a related job In addition, before March 31, additional system-wide metrics will be developed, in consultation with the sector focused on applied research, commercialization, entrepreneurial activity, and community impact (e.g., number of patents, number of licences, revenue from licensing, number of start-up companies and jobs created). Institutions are invited to provide up to 3 additional metrics that demonstrate economic and community impact. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education Teaching and Learning Student Population As part of forming an institution s profile and measuring progress in this component, the ministry will use the following system-wide metrics for all institutions: National Survey of Student Engagement Results (university-specific) Student Satisfaction Survey Results (college-specific) Graduation rates Retention rates Number of students enrolled in a co-op program at institution Number of online course registrants, programs, and courses at institution Institutions are invited to provide up to 3 additional metrics that identify unique strengths in program delivery, enhanced teaching quality, and student learning outcomes. As part of forming an institution s profile and measuring progress in this component, the ministry will use the following system-wide metrics for all institutions: Number and proportion of Aboriginal, first generation, students with disabilities, and francophone students at an institution Number and proportion of international students enrolled in Ontario (as reported in annual institutional enrolment reporting) Proportion of an institution's enrolment that receives OSAP Institutions are invited to provide up to 3 additional metrics related to improving access, retention, and success for these and other groups of students.

28 Differentiation Framework Components Metrics Research and Graduate Education As part of forming a university s profile and measuring progress in this component, the ministry will use the following sector-wide metrics for all universities: Research Capacity Total sponsored research Number of research chairs Number of graduate degrees awarded Number of graduate awards/scholarships Research Focus Graduate degrees awarded to undergraduate degrees awarded Graduate to undergraduate ratio PhD degrees awarded to undergraduate degrees awarded Research Impact Normalized Tri-Council funding (total and per full-time faculty) Number of publications (total and per full-time faculty) Number of citations (total and per full-time faculty) Citation impact (normalized average citation per paper) International Competitiveness Ratio of international to domestic graduates [used by Times Higher Education Rankings] Aggregate of international global rankings Program Offerings Universities are invited to provide up to 3 additional metrics that demonstrate their research strengths. As part of forming an institution s profile and measuring progress in this component, the ministry will use the following system-wide metrics for all institutions: Concentration of enrolment at universities by program major and by credential Concentration of enrolment at colleges by occupational cluster and by credential Institution s system share of enrolment by program major or by occupational cluster and by credential Number of apprentices in each trade (college-specific) Pass/fail rates of apprentices in each trade (college-specific) Funding for apprenticeship by trade (college-specific) Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 15

29 Differentiation Framework Components Institutional Collaboration to Support Student Mobility Metrics As part of forming an institution s profile in this component, the ministry will use the following system-wide metrics for all institutions: Number of college and university pathways and/or articulation agreements (college-college, college-university, university-college, university-university) Number of transfer applicants and registrants Number of college graduates enrolled in university programs Institutions are invited to provide up to 3 additional metrics that demonstrate support for greater co-ordination and pathways. Differentiation Framework Strategic Enrolment Metrics Given the forecasted enrolment growth over the next 5 10 years, the ministry has asked institutions to provide medium-term forecasts of planned enrolment through to illustrate the future enrolment trajectory of an institution. These will form the basis for discussing medium-term enrolment growth per institution. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education Financial Sustainability The ministry will use the financial sustainability metrics outlined in the Deputy Minister s November 2013 Memorandum as a backdrop to the Strategic Mandate Agreement discussions. Following the conclusion of SMAs, the ministry intends to engage the sector in discussions around financial sustainability with a view to finalizing the metrics. 16

30 4.1 Strategic Mandate Agreements The Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMAs) are the mechanism through which colleges and universities articulate their unique mandates, strengths, and aspirations. They outline the relationship between the ministry and the institutions, and how each institution s mission and activities align with Ontario s vision for postsecondary education as articulated in this framework. 4.2 Policy, Processes, and Funding Levers Ontario s differentiation and Strategic Mandate Agreement process will set the foundation for future alignment of government levers to support sustainability, a high-quality postsecondary education, and other government priorities. Over time, the ministry will align its policy, processes, and funding levers with both the framework and the SMAs to ensure coherent decision making. 4.3 Accountability Reporting by colleges and universities to the ministry continues to be an integral part of the government s relationship with institutions. The ministry will work with the sector to phase in consolidated and streamlined reports. The ministry will re-profile the Multi-Year Accountability Agreements (MYAAs) as the interim accountability reporting mechanism for Strategic Mandate Agreements. Elements in the report-back template will be reviewed to reduce duplication and reporting burden. Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education 17

31 Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework: Technical Addendum on Metrics 2013 Introduction The Technical Addendum outlines the definitions, methodologies and details regarding the system-wide metrics that are identified in Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework for Postsecondary Education. In general, the definitions found in this document are aligned with existing definitions and accepted methodologies used to collect information through other ministry programs and reporting tools (e.g. Multi-year Accountability Agreement Report Backs, Key Performance Indicators and annual enrolment reporting for funding). Please note that the set of metrics identified in the Differentiation Policy Framework and defined in this document is not intended to replace or supplant other metrics currently collected by the ministry, including through the mechanisms noted above. The ministry recognizes that many of these metrics are proxy measures and that more robust metrics will need to be developed. Following the release of the Differentiation Policy Framework, the ministry will be engaging the sector on refining and developing metrics to support the differentiation process. This document will be updated as new system-wide metrics become available. 1

32 Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework: Technical Addendum on Metrics 2013 Jobs, Innovation, and Economic Development DEFINITIONS & METHODOLOGIES SOURCE YEARS 1. Graduate employment rates as captured in KPI report - University Percentage of graduates of bachelors or first professional degree programs in the labour force who were employed six months and two years after graduation. KPI to 2. Graduate employment rates as captured in KPI report - College The percentage of graduates in the labour force who were employed 6 months upon graduation. KPI to 3. Employer Satisfaction Rates (college specific) as captured in KPI report - College The percentage of those employers who hired college graduates and were satisfied with the employees college preparation for the type of work being done, 6 months upon graduation. KPI to 4. Number of graduates employed full-time in a related job. For universities, graduates of bachelors or first professional degree programs in the labour force who were employed full-time in work related to skills acquired in their program of study, six months and two years after graduation. For colleges, graduates employed full-time in a job related to their field of study six months after graduation. Graduate to Survey KPI to 2

33 Ontario s Differentiation Policy Framework: Technical Addendum on Metrics 2013 Teaching and Learning DEFINITIONS & METHODOLOGIES SOURCE YEARS 1. Graduation rates as collected through Key Performance Indicators (KPI) report - University The university graduation rate is calculated through the selection of all first year, new to the institution, undergraduate students from the Fall enrolment file 8 years prior, who received a bachelor or first professional degree. For example, the 2013 university graduation rate is calculated upon the 2005 Year One enrolments (first-year, new to the institution, undergraduate students) matched against records of students who received a bachelors or first professional degree from the same institution during the period (subsequent 7 years). KPI to 2. Graduation rates as collected through KPI report - College The college Graduation Rate KPI is based on tracking individual students who entered a program of instruction in a particular enrolment reporting period and assessing how many of those individuals completed the program a number of years later. KPI to The normal program duration used to establish a student's program completion time frame equals approximately 200 per cent of the normal program duration (except 7 years for students enrolled in baccalaureate programs). For example, the College Graduation Rate is based on students who started oneyear programs in , two-year programs in , and three-year programs in , and who graduated by the academic year. 3. Retention rates as collected from the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CRSDE) Retention rates are based on first-time, full-time undergraduate students who commenced studies in the previous year and have continued to study at the same institution in the reporting year. CRSDE to 4. Retention rates as reported in the Multi-year Accountability Agreement (MYAA) report back Retention rates are based on November 1st Full-Time enrolment data to determine year-over-year retention in multi-year programs (programs on which enrolment is reported at minimum twice). MYAA to 3