behind the 5...... '-

'- RCHIVES , Au. p. E. I. apnl 11,72

EMS“!

; SAW

" T

1st -His To 31,"

. In the fall of 1971, a work commit— .tee was set up make recommendations to Cabinet on possible bursary programs, through the Department of Education.

.. The Chairman of the committee was David MacPherson, Student Aid Officer (Dept. of Education), and other mem- bers were Robert LeClair — Financial Aid Chairman of UPEI, Howard Jamieson .of the Secretariat, and two members 'whose names are unavailable at this time.

The committee met twice, and decided_ to submit three plans for consideration. These submissions were:

A° a plan in which the Student Loan/ bursary ratio would be 75/25, starting at zero dollars.

B._a plan in which the student loan

would run to$l,400, and after

that the student would be eligi- ble to receive bursary money.

C. a plan ih which the Student Loan/V bursary ratio would be 80/20 from zero dollars;

"The Department of Student Services of UPEI sent a letter to the Chairman of the committee in support of plan A, and in- formed the Student Union of the matter for the first time. The UPEI Student Council considered the matter, and de—

‘cided it was completely in favor of Plan A. A letter to-this effect was sent to Mr. MacPhersonand Lorne Moase, Deputy Minister of Education.

The Department of student Services then became aware of the displeasure of the Department of Education at the in- formation being released to the students.

The decision was then made by Cabinet and was announced by Education Minister Bennett on April 4th. The decision was to adopt plan B. No mention of plans A or

,C was made, and no reasons for their re- fusal were given.;Mr. LeClair has stated

. "I don't think the government even con- Wsidered the other two plans.“ 4

.Le Clair [Di'smuyed

April 7, 1972

I am writing this asthe Financial Aids Officer, U.P.E.I. and what I an writing does not necessarily reflect the view of the University community. The recent de— cision by Government to change the burn ‘sary policy for university students causes me, as an individual, grave con— cern. In order to obtain any bursary consideration the individual student must show need of more than $1,400.00.

-}This, I suggest, is a blatant encourage— ‘ment for a student to prove need of more than he in reality needs in order to be considered for any of the free money doled out beyond the $1,400.00 level. This new policy also tends to discourage initiative in a young man or woman who if they get a summer job or part-time work their need is being diminished and hence they will not qualify for any bur— sary consideration. For example, John Doe a student at X High School. If he has initiative and drive he can get summer employment and earn about $700.00. Having earned this amount he will have Vtrouble qualifying for any bursary money.

Peter Blue on the other hand realizes. 'that'if he works he will hardly qualify for any bursary money. He doesn't look ' for a job. Come September he shows need of $2,100.00. So he gets $1,400.00 loan and $700.00 bursary thus having the same amount, $700.00, as John Doe who worked all summer. Thus the individual who works 'gets nothing and the fellow who loafed' :gets $700.00 for having done nothing all summer. Incentives to regard initiative and drive should have been introduced as .were suggested by a plan which originated jin my office and presented to the Student 'Aid.Officer in the provincial Department of Education.

R.J. LeClair, Financial Aids Officer University of P.E.I.

(See "Negative Aspects“)'

This fact sheet is a publication_of the University of Prince Edward Is— land Student Union as a supplement

of the regular weekly student news— ' DaDer.