November

29, 2011 Dear Deputies Ferguson and Williams, Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Universities of Nova Scotia at our November 25th meeting. We appreciate the governments continued willingness to invite students to these discussions. We write to express our attitudes towards the draft agreement in the paragraphs below. We highlight the language we are supportive of as well as sections that are concerning and areas requiring improvement. Section 10 We are supportive of the continued discussions outlined in subsections a through o. We recommend adding an additional bullet point on Access and Affordability. We believe that the university system in Nova Scotia must be accessible to any citizen who wishes to pursue an education within that system, regardless of the financial or social background of that individual. While discussions on quality assurance, transparency and accountability in universities important, it seems trite that the government would put such heavy focus on these issues without at the same time ensuring that this system is accessible to the public it serves. The decisions made by this government since taking office still only serve to make education in Nova Scotia less accessible. Improvements in the student assistance program over the last year are welcomed, but as we have shown in previous communications with the government, they have not kept pace with the rising cost of tuition and living costs. The purchasing power of a student loan, for instance, has decreased every year since 2006. Throughout the MoU process, there has been no direct discussion on the accessibility of our university system. Section 11 In April, the government made it clear that students were a valued participant in the process of generating the next Memorandum of Understanding. The issues to be discussed as a part of the Change Mandate through The Partnership Board and Steering Committee and working groups are the same issues that were originally intended to be discussed at the MoU table. Any discussions on these issues must also involve student representatives as full and equal members. Following the route proposed in the draft MoU represents a dramatic shift in the governments position on meaningful engagement with students for the worse. The principal we espouse in asking to be a part of these discussions is simple. If its about us, dont do it without us. University students contribute roughly half of non- research operating revenue to universities. The government represents the

 taxpayer who contributes the other half. It makes perfect sense to have the primary funders of the system any table where decisions about the future of the university system in Nova Scotia. The language in section 11 of the draft MoU is patriarchal. Students will be invited to participate in appropriate working groups, reads subsection c. This begs the obvious question who will determine what discussion are appropriate for students to participate in? It is our opinion that is inappropriate to have any of the planned discussions without students involved as equal participants alongside government and universities. The draft document states that the partnership board will meet annually with student groups. We appreciate the token, but do not feel this type of consultation will create the climate of collaboration that is necessary to ensure a workable university system for all. Not engaging student groups in the same level of discussion as university administration, or creating an alternate avenue for participation, places student groups in a position of perpetual reactionary, and oppositional, state. The alternative is meaningful engagement that creates the opportunity for us to be proactive contributors that collaborate on common priorities to create a system that is the best fit for the students and stakeholders it serves. Section 12 As communicated to the government before, we believe that tuition should remain frozen for all programs, as had been the case under the previous memorandum of understanding. Medical, Dentistry and Law Student Tuition The policy to allow unregulated tuition increases for these professional programs highlights the governments lack of clear direction on accessibility. We know that these programs are some of the most inaccessible programs in our university system, yet this draft agreement will allow tuition to increase without limit. This is particularly concerning given the current parental income levels of many students currently in professional programs. For instance, in medical schools, a 2002 survey of Canadian Medical Schools demonstrated that almost half (43.5 per cent) of then-medical students came from neighborhoods with median family incomes in the top quintile of Canadian earners. Meanwhile, only 15 per cent of parents of medical students had annual household incomes less than $40,000, while 39.7 per cent of Canadian households reported incomes of $40,000 or less annually1. Already fewer students from low-income backgrounds attend medical school
1 Dhalla, I. A., Kwong, J. C., Streiner, D. L., Baddour, R. E., Waddell, A. E., & Johnson, I. L. (January 01, 2002). Characteristics of first- year students in Canadian medical schools. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 166, 8, 1029-35.

 compared to other students. Growth in tuition fees at a rate nearly triple that of inflation as we have seen this year will not make medical education any more accessible for these students. A similar challenge exists for students considering law and dentistry. International Student Tuition The proposed draft allows for unregulated increases in international student tuition. This raises two related issues: fairness and accountability. From a taxpayer perspective, it makes sense to have international student tuition fees that account for the true cost of educating an international student. Under the existing funding formula, the government has agreed to fund international students, up to 10 per cent of total enrollment at an institution, no different than any other Canadian student. It is our understanding that in practise the government funds all international students as if they were Canadian students. From this perspective, the cost of an international students tuition should be no different than the cost of any other students tuition. As publicly funded institutions, the university should be accountable for where the money collected from international students goes. If the cost of funding the education of an international student has been covered, what is the justification for collecting additional revenue? The obvious answer is that the universities need a release valve from which revenue can flow to compensate for funding reductions from government. This presents the obvious problem of fairness. If the cost of education is increasing, the quality of education is stagnant or decreasing, and international students are bearing a greater burden of the cost than anyone else, how is this fair? We suggest section 12 of the agreement be amended to address issues of accountability and fairness for international students. Full Cost Recovery Programs In addition to consultation with the Department of Labour and Advanced Education prior to converting a regular program to a full cost recovery program, universities should also be required to consultation with students, to be defined in a similar way as Ancillary and Auxiliary Fees. Section 13 Ancillary and Auxiliary Fees We refer to our original recommendations from the previous MoU that we recommend be applied to the wording in section 13. 1. Universities agree to only raise Ancillary and Auxiliary (A&A) fees after receiving approval from the students who will pay those fees. (Clause 15h)

 1. The mechanisms for approval should be defined by the student association (or student union) recognized by the university and/or empowered by an act of incorporation that declares them the official representative body of those students. This may be through referendum, a vote of council or executive, as each association deems necessary. A&A fees should not be raised to compensate for an inability to raise tuition. (15a) Approval may not be necessary for essential ancillary service fees such as meal plan fees, where the costs are linked directly to market costs. In this case, student approval should be sought only when the fee increases exceed the rate of inflation. If student approval is not mandated, any increases in A&A fees should be subject to the approval of the Department of Education concomitant with formal notice given to students and student associations who may appeal the fee increase to the minister.

2. 3.

4.

Section 15 Students should be a part of any discussions related to the amendment of the MoU. Student representatives are a part of the discussions that lead to the creation of this MoU, and thus it makes sense for students to be a part of the discussions if there are any changes to be made to the document. Sincerely, Mark Coffin and Kyle Power Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations CC: Dr. John Harker, Chair CONSUP Mr. Gabe Hoogers and Ms. Rebecca Rose, CFS Nancy Vanstone