me UPEI Sun, mursday,’ oct. 27, .1977, page IO

X ‘ 1

M PH E C: Wh e n n iv

by Mark King, Atlantic-Bureau Chief, CUP

A few weeks ago, an austere group of academic and business figures handed the premiers of the three maritime provinces a docu-

ment that included a pricetag, somewhere around 150 million dollars.

That exact amount is what the Maritime Provinces Higher Educa- tion Commission (MPHEC) believes the governments of the three pro- vinces will have to give the region's post secondary institutions during the 1978-79 academic year.

The governments, represented by an ad-hoc committee of civil ser- vants, ministers, and ‘ their assistants in consultation with the provincial treasury boards, will scrutinize the figure, and in all pro— bability cut this, and hand it back to the MPHEC which will divide up what it is given among the 30 in- stitutions under its jurisdiction.

This is the second year the MPHEC has gone through the mo- tions of preparing estimates on the costs of running post secondary education in the maritime region and making an impartial request to

government on behalf of the institu- v

tions for subsidies. The commis- sion, if true to last year's form, will have no hesitation telling govern- mentwhat effects their cuts in the recommended subsidies will have: poorer academic quality and reduc- ed educatiOnal opportunity for the people of the maritimes.

History

Per capita, there are more degree granting institutions in the Atlantic Provinces than anywhere else in the world, 17 in all, with about 20,000 students from a population of over two million. An unusual statistic, taken by itself, for a region that is commonly accepted as the bottom end of the socio-economic scale in North America, and has far less non degree granting and technical in- stitutions than the national average.

Historically, however, that statistic makes plenty of sense. Post-secondary institutions in the Atlantic Provinces were originally formed almost completely along religious sectarian lines—the Catholics founding, among others St. Mary‘s and St. Francis Xavier, the Baptists, Acadia, the

Methodists Mt. Allison, and the leader in denominational higher. education, the Anglicans, who opened Kings College near Halifax

reorganization of post-secondary in- stitutions into UPEl. Within the Atlantic, the only exception to the trend has been in Newfoundland, where Memorial University was formed at the initiative of the government, first as a~collegein 1923, and later as a» university in

Balm/L: going to What Until 1967, the federal govern- ment financed Post secondary education by providing a directper capita subsidy to the provinces ($5.00 in the last year it operated; 1965-66); the provinces divided up the money among the~institutions on the basis of enrolment. With the negotiation of the federal Fiscal Ar- rangements act in 1967, the Atlantic provinces were given the option of continuing a per capita arrange- ment, or entering into a 50-50 mat- ching grants system with the federal government. Nova Scotia was the only province to opt for the matching system, the other prov- inces apparently not being able to match the federal government dollar for dollar.

Federal funding reduced some of the pr0vincial burden for direct funding but the provincial higher education, committees assumed

more control in the decision making process as the provinces moved toward non-sectarian, public, higher education. The institutions, mean- while remained autonomous en- tities, ultimately responsible through their charters to legislatures of each pr0vince. «

Government cuts in recommended subsidies will result in poorer academic quality and reduced educational opportunity for the peo-

ple of the maritimes.

in the early ninteenth century. Although reactions against rampant sectarianism produced some developments, notably the creation of Dalhousie, and the Nova Scotia Technical school, the. situation re- mained much the same until the lat-

ter half of this century when govern- '

ments began direct public involve- ment in higher education.

Government Intervention began in the early sixties when public financing of the institutions in- Creased dramatically: Nova Scotia formed a “grants committee” in 1963; the New Brunsmck Higher Education commission was formed r 1967; and Prince Edward Island formed a grants committee in 1968 in conjunction with a major

A regional approach to post- secondary education began in 1964 with the formation of the' Atlantic Association of Universities (AAU). The AAU began as a voluntary association among the presidents of a number of Atlantic institutions and had asits stated purpose “to assist the co-ordination of higher education, to ensure high academic standards in a period of rising costs and to avoid unnecessary duplica- tion of faculties and courses of study". The administration of their own institutions had led the univer- Sities to ignore the simple fact they had common interests and coopera~ tion on._a regional level could only improve matters;

The AAU began cooperative ef- icrts at vari0us levels: they took a

the »

.united approach to the federal

government with regard to operating assistance, university business officers cooperated on the matter of financial statistics, they met with grants committees, and created's'ub committee's, perhaps the most important of which was the Academic Vice-Presidents com- mittee. In addition there were associations with other regional associations.

Clearly the trend toward agion‘alism in the area of higher ‘ ucaionrwasi: _‘ ire (the AAU ravbiédmiii‘efigi 07% $33,»... body w‘ithgovernmént sanction that could deal .with all aspects of com-‘ mon concern to the institutions and

gavernments. In fact such a recom- mendation was part of a report com-

missioned by the AAU in 1968 as part of the maritime provinces study on the possibility of interprovincial union. 1

A regional approach to maritime issues was politically inhibited, and until 1971, got no further than a study, However, in the' summer of that year, the maritime premiers saw the regional overlap demanding more than fleeting attention and decided to solidify cooperation somewhat more with the creation ,of the Council of Maritime Premiers (CMP). The decision to launch the MPH EC was the first tangible result of cooperation among the three premiers following the creation of the council.

The premiers were, however, a lit- ‘

tle ahead of themselves. As Jeff Holmes, executive director of the AAU, put it in a report to the Interna- tional Council for Educational Development “the decision to launch the MPHEC was made by the premiers in the euphoria of their first meeting. . . . the announcement took the maritime premiers by sur- prise and created some consterna- tion. The assumption had been that they would be censulted about the timing of such a move and the terms of reference of’the commis- sion". ~ Nevertheless, the initiative had

' begun and the task of laying the

organization groundwork for the commission was taken up by William Jenkins, a former principal of the Nova Scotia Agricultural Col- lege. Fifteen months of planning and consultation followed during which the concept was presented with _much opposition: the provinces and other interest groups could not agree on a chairperson, the Nova Scotia Education minister publicly opposed losing direct pro- vincial control of post-sebondary policy making, the New Brunswick Acadian population feared the loss of their culture in the larger populace. ‘

Financial. Planning

_The commission did eventually form with the passage of an, act in the three maritime legislatures giv- ing the MPHEC the purpose of “assisting the provinces and in-

. stitutions in attaining a more effi-

cient and effective utilization and

‘allocation in the field of higher

education in the region”.

MPHEC membership is ultimately the sole concern of the CMP which holds the final appointment respon- sibility. There are 15 members, 5 chosen from the public and 5 from government and other non aca- demic institutions, all selected by

the premiers, and 5 members

chosen by the universities throngh-

rhe AAU, frequently including

representatives gwho are :not necessarily with a university; - , 4 The 'body is mandatedby the Premiers Council to carry but via number of specific activities within the, general functions of planning and recommendln'g policy in- the area of higher education in ’the region. ~ - The most significant function of the MPHEC, the one that affects

everyone involved in the regional

;_take -,into ac decisions a . .

discussion. The MPHE

mended the g

.rziOUbSidiQS tot - year by 11.5 .

tation to the o stated clearly gap in the le . secondary ins

Maritimes and

‘ The MPHEC isnowlittle more the fish-pond from which. the gove nually toss out grab bags to the in lieu of a straight face toface ha

higher education system is the mat- ter of financial planning and recom- mendation to the premiers council. During the autumn of each year, the MPHEC receives a budget and five year spending projections from each institution. The administra- tions outline general budget areas ’ and allocations for the year ahead including a request for subsidy to supplement tuition fees and other revenue sources; that information is compiled for the CMP by the

MPHEC which usually modifies the'

requests to fit regional consisten- cies. The commission then decides on an arbitrary figure that re- presents the government cost of financing “post secondary for the year in question. ,

The total figure is passed to the regional and , provincial treasury boards who decide to either accept or reject the MPHEC proposal, and in the latter case arrive at another figure that will be passed back to the. MPHEC, the commission cen- siders the amount giVen by the governments and allocates a cer- tain amount to each institution through a Formula based on enrol- ment andother weighting factors.

In addition to handling the real grant amounts for the year ahead, the commission also provides the CMP with projections two years in advance of the budget year, which the premiers and their represen- tatives, presumably, at least, also

' initial

widening. . . . disparities w' in a lower qua education int and a reducti opportunities dents".

The best muster for a r mission was crease in tota felt tuition fee by more tha strong guideli

The premie few: the ~MPH 10 percent tui previous was increase in should-be con

,The AAU, al .awidening gap

port, went. pu request for a increase, sug are apparentl MPHEC.

Not surpri went to the 0 projection be operating assi until 1980. Th based on the - yeah million: inst was given $1 i the task of it based on gran

Tl. '

“an . I

3: \

' . .

es. s'. ' \

‘ s

u. q

| ski‘éa. ‘ \

-. 0-..‘t/’¢ I _

MPHEC: 'amvmsmea pituént

-,..-