Last week, the University of Alberta’s Board of Governors retreated to
discuss the challenges raised by the recent provincial budget. They met Premier Alison Redford and Deputy
Premier Thomas Lukaszuk, who is also the minister for Enterprise and Advanced
Education. Upon his return, Lucaszuk
tweeted “Back in #yeg from @UAlberta retreat. Planing its role in Campus
Alberta, Canadian and global education. Exciting! #abgov #ableg #abpse”.
I’m sure the Minister meant to type ‘planning’ instead of ‘planing’, but
given that postsecondary institutions are dealing with a surprise 7.3% cut in funding,
perhaps ‘planing’ was the intended verb.
‘Sawing’ or ‘cutting’ might also have been appropriate choices.
Other developments this past week provided some sense of where the
government sees potential savings in its postsecondary file. The government formally announced that it was
using reserve funds to freeze next year’s tuition rates. The
Edmonton Journal reported that
Lukaszuk was also ruling out the use of ‘market modifiers’ to implement large
tuition increases for professional schools such as law or medicine. A
government news release noted, “We’ve been very clear that we will
not be balancing the budget on the backs of students.”
The government exhibits less restraint about balancing its
budget on the backs of postsecondary institution employees. Lukaszuk sent a letter to the chairs of the
boards of governors of all postsecondary schools requesting all future
collective bargaining agreements to hold to salary freezes for 3 years, and no
more than 2% increases in a fourth. In
addition, “awarding of performance bonuses would likely be considered
irresponsible during this current economic climate.” This letter, combined with comments to the
press, suggests that Lukaszuk believes that savings accrued by cutting salaries
and by increasing teaching loads are preferential to program cuts, which have
also been making the news this past week, and over which the minister has the
final say. “If
the schools ask me to close programs, I will look at what they are doing for
efficiencies, what they are proposing on the salary side,” Lukaszuk said,
adding that teaching loads could also be on the table.
What I find profoundly puzzling about all of these developments is their
simultaneous accompaniment by government claims that the $147 million taken
from postsecondary education will not harm it.
According to the Edmonton Journal,
the Premier believes that “the cutbacks will make the system stronger by
helping ‘change the way we think, work, and deliver services’.” In the same letter to the chairs of the
Boards in which he requested salary freezes and elimination of bonuses,
Lukaszuk wrote “our government believes that it is important to attract and retain
the best and brightest.”
Why does the government believe that it can make Albertan
postsecondary stronger by dramatically cutting its budget, or that it can
attract and retain the best and brightest in a climate of reduced funding and
of salary restraint?
This belief is certainly out of step with other government
policies that acknowledge attracting high-power research talent requires
substantial financial investment.
Lukaszuk’s ministry, for instance, is responsible for the Campus Alberta Innovates Program (CAIP). According to its website, the CAIP intends to
recruit new research leaders to Alberta in four designated priority areas: energy
and environment, food and nutrition, neuroscience/prions and water. It has
budgeted funds for 16 research chairs in these areas, varying in value from
approximately $300k to $650k per year for seven years. Funding all 16 chairs
for 7 years at the minimum level
would require $33.6 million. This
Government of Alberta program clearly recognizes that Big Science costs big money.
If you are not willing to pay, then Big Science moves to other
jurisdictions that will. Unfortunately,
the same is true for medium science and for tiny science, and this is why
government cuts will decrease postsecondary quality.
Consider the goal of attracting the best and the brightest, not with
high-end research chairs, but using the usual means of tenure-track academic
positions. A promising, bright candidate
is going to accept offers from other regions or countries when they realize
that an Albertan position comes with salary freezes, no merit pay, larger
teaching loads, and the like. The best
and brightest always have other offers to consider. Attracting such researchers is a competition,
and the current Albertan climate is unattractive in comparison to others.
Retention faces the same issue.
From a professional point of view, when one’s current position appears
tarnished, one looks to opportunities elsewhere. In academia, who can take advantage of such
opportunities? Promising junior faculty
members are very mobile.
Well-established senior scholars are candidates for high profile
positions, such as those offered by CAIP – but by agencies outside of Alberta. Losing either type of researcher weakens a
department. Worse, in tight economic
times no money is available to replace a departed scholar. Programs necessarily become weaker and
smaller as their top assets move to greener pastures.
In my own department, there is clear evidence of such weakening related
to previous government cutbacks. I
recently published a historical analysis of a century of psychology at the
University of Alberta. For a long period
that began after World War II, the department grew at a steady state of about
one faculty member per year until its size peaked in the late 1980s. With Klein-era cutbacks in the early 1990s,
department size shrank and never recovered.
All indicators suggest another downturn is on the horizon, affecting
many different programs in all Albertan postsecondary institutions. Not all agree with this prediction. Lukaszuk
has said, “I would be very surprised if any professors are actually seriously
thinking of leaving any university in Alberta”. However, as the postsecondary sector found
out in the budget, surprises do happen.
The government may eventually have to admit that it cannot afford the
quality of postsecondary education that it would like to offer, and that one
consequence of its budget will be a failure to attract and retain the best and
brightest.
In addition to the academic staff, let's not forget all of the non-academic staff who are affected. People being laid off after 20+ (or sometimes 30+) years of service, just shy of retirement being a possibility. So many service/ faculty/ department units are having to continually "do more with less" - which impacts the service to students. I thought Klein was bad for education - this government seems to be worse.
ReplyDelete