The Town Hall on the Program Prioritization Process (PPP) was well attended, with some students filing in before and after classes to hear as much as possible. Attendance was a good representation of our institution – full of students, faculty, staff and administration.
However, despite a lengthy presentation and a tension-filled question and answer period, the CSA is left with some questions and concerns. Our disappointment with the criteria remains; there were 10 criteria used to measure academic and non-academic programs that were not developed by the university community.
There was no defined role for student leaders and students to participate and it was on a college-by-college basis that opportunities to provide input were potentially available. Student leaders attempted to get involved in the process and a select few were fortunate enough to help fill out several Program Information Request (PIR) forms, however the actual development of criteria went untouched. Faculty has also expressed discontent in their exclusion from this process, as stated in one of the Faculty Association newsletters: “the Administration has imposed these [criteria and templates] on the basis of an external consultant’s recommendations.” Some faculty that were involved in filling out the PIR forms noted the time required meant less time for teaching, research and service (Distribution of Effort requirements).
A good example of involving the university community took place at the University of Regina with their Academic Review Program (ARP), which was largely based on Robert Dickeson’s book. They extensively consulted their faculty, alumni, staff and students through surveys about the configuration of the two sets of criteria to assess programs against. This is what we mean by the PPP being ‘top-down’ in its implementation.
A member of the audience challenged this ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, with concern stemming from assessing academic and non-academic programs and services together when revenue generation (8 points) and cost (10 points) are factored in. At the Town Hall, it was indicated that revenue generation was not a main factor that influenced the rankings of the programs. We would like to see how this was done. We are curious to learn why programs that tend to bring revenue to our university (e.g. Parking) or are funded primarily on Incidental Fees (e.g. Fitness Recreation) scored in the top quintile, whereas programs unable to adequately account for costs or revenue generation were in the bottom quintiles (e.g. minors and the bachelor of arts, general program). The process of ranking programs and informing cuts to programs remove an impending $32.4 million structural deficit is problematic.
In regards to the PPP Taskforce, we recognize that a graduate and an undergraduate student were part of its membership, however these positions were hired as university employees, and thus they were being bound to think institutionally. The study body did not vote for these members, and they are not representatives. This is further demonstrated through the division of the Task Force into groups of four when ranking and scoring of programs. The Report states on page 11 that “the 21 members of the Task Force were divided into four groups that included representation of colleges, faculty, staff and students.” How were only two students involved with all four groups? Although there was not administration on the Task Force, it was the administration that decided to implement the PPP, and who held the power to communicate with students and ask for the university’s input while developing the criteria.
Alastair Summerlee, President of the University, said he does lobby the government for increased funding, however in April 2013 he said, “tuition fees have gone up considerably, and if this was a world in which we had a government who had the money to be able to invest, I would be very strongly pressing the government to invest and not to increase fees.” Does the administration require stronger support and demand from students in these lobbying efforts?
If PPP is just one tool, to what extent will students be engaged moving forward with the PPP and other tools involved, like the carrying out of the integrated plan? The University of Guelph should think of itself as an academic public institution of higher learning seeking to better the planet, rather than a business failing to make its bottom line. The CSA is dedicated to participating in discussions moving forward to uphold the value of our university.