Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Education

Bad student visa policy is no solution for bad student visa policy

Published

9 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Ken Coates

Making matters worse, a Statistics Canada report released in November of 2023 found that the number of postsecondary students actually enrolled at Canadian Universities was 20% to 30% smaller than the total number of individuals with international student visa’s.

Post-secondary education is in turmoil, thrust into the headlines by the Government of Canada’s decision to cut back on international student visas and work permits. The near panicked response by colleges and universities across the county has attracted attention. The federal decision is poor public policy, with flawed timing, significant negative impacts, and potentially serious long-term implications. But the ‘solutions’ implemented in January 2024 are a classic example of using bad policy to address bad policy.  The fallout from this mélange of policy decisions could severely damage Canadian post-secondary institutions and the Canadian economy.

Governments, colleges, and universities have come to rely on international students, now numbering close to 1 million in Canada, particularly their tuition fees and the money that they bring into the country. The tuition fee revenues freed governments from the obligation to provide adequate funding to post-secondary institutions. Colleges and universities, for their part, used international student funding to avoid difficult, painful decisions related to the level of provincial support (the territories are not strongly affected by these processes).

The current controversy reflects more than a decade of poor and ineffective federal policies. Canada opened the gates for immigration, reaching unprecedented levels of refugees, formal immigrants, and hundreds of thousands of international students. Making matters worse, a Statistics Canada report released in November of 2023 found that the number of postsecondary students actually enrolled at Canadian Universities was 20% to 30% smaller than the total number of individuals with international student visa’s. Pointing to significant abuse of the study permit system, the report states, “It is unclear whether [the international ‘students’] stayed in Canada and, if so, what their main activities were.”

Our rapidly rising population is now blamed, not always accurately, for a serious national housing shortage and sky-rocketing prices, particularly in the major cities. The international student debate highlights the shocking shortcomings of the nation’s approach to housing and the absence of a thoughtful plan for population growth and rapid urbanization.

Bad federal policy is more than matched by poor provincial decisions, particularly in Ontario.  The Liberal and Progressive Conservative administrations in Ontario have underfunded colleges and universities, dramatically so, relative to the other provinces and territories.  Frozen tuition fees only added to institutional fiscal challenges. Several provinces, again led by Ontario, doubled down by authorizing many for-profit private colleges, most operating in league with public universities and colleges, to recruit international students. At the provincial level, the influx of international students, coupled with high tuition fees, masked the deficiencies of provincial funding, leaving underlying financial challenges unaddressed.

Colleges and universities had bad policies of their own.  Without the government funding to meet their salary, administrative and capital costs, post-secondary institutions became addicted to international student fees, the crack cocaine of advanced education.  Dozens of colleges and universities, enrolled thousands of international students, feeding the bottom line but increasing the reliance on international students and high tuition fees.  They assumed, over-optimistically, that the steady flow of international students would never slow, let alone stop. They are now paying the price for that miscalculation.

Some institutions, particularly small institutions in northern and small-town locations, eve established satellite facilities in big cities to capitalize on strong student demand and to supplement small and stagnant enrollments on the home campus. International students and satellite operations were lifelines for institutions that would otherwise be in severe difficulty.

The Government of Canada’s response to the convergence of multiple bad policy streams consists of additional bad policy decisions. International student visas have been slashed by 35% and student-friendly work permit arrangements have been cut back dramatically. Canada’s once wide-open doors for international students have been partially closed.  A carefully cultivated reputation for being receptive to foreign students has been degraded, if not dismantled, in one quick federal move.

The federal policy, announced with seemingly little coordination with provincial authorities and institutions, is a plainly political move, an urgent step taken by a Liberal government reeling in the polls. The decision was released in January 2024, at a key stage in the international student cycle. Colleges, public and private, are vulnerable to dramatic shifts in enrollment and they now face catastrophic losses of income. The implications go much further.  Residences will want for students and employers of the eager international students will struggle to find replacements.  Many college and university faculty and staff, particularly vulnerable short-term and sessional workers, will likely lose their jobs. And the national economy will lose out on a big portion of the billions of dollars spent annually by the international students.

The problem has been years in the making. The government may have been trying to make up for lost time but the hasty federal decision has already had an impact. Colleges and universities are already reporting sharp drops in applications. The message that Canada is no longer friendly for international students is out globally. The damage to student enrollment might be greater than anticipated.

A more appropriate approach would have been to announce a gradual reduction, starting in 2025, giving the colleges and universities time to adjust to a potential fiscal disaster. Another sensible alternative could have been to take aim at the abuse of the student visa system and to ensure those who entered the country under a study permit were actually enrolled in and attending classes. Bad policy often comes from knee-jerk reactions to political processes; good policy takes careful thought and, often, time.

Canada’s large international student recruitment industry brought billions of dollars into the Canadian economy.  Thousands of students worked while they studied and made successful transitions to permanent resident status.  Many people who came to Canada as high fee-paying students have become Canadian citizens and taxpayers.  The students followed the rules, as did the colleges and universities that capitalized on clear and long-standing government policy. The federal and provincial policies may have been poorly designed and inappropriate, but governments set the parameters and expectations and shouldn’t punish others for their shortsightedness.

Bad policy, to be succinct, is no solution for bad policy, but that is what is happening to international student education in Canada.

Ken Coates is a distinguished fellow and director of Indigenous affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a professor of Indigenous governance at Yukon University.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Education

40 Canadian professors urge Trudeau government to abolish DEI mandates

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“Many agree with us – including senior, tenured faculty – but will not speak publicly for fear of repercussions”

Dozens of Canadian professors have joined together to call for an end to the pro-LGBT diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates in universities. 

In a May 24 letter to Parliament, 40 Canadian university professors appealed to Prime Minster Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government to abandon DEI initiatives in universities, arguing they are both ineffective and harmful to Canadians.  

“While some may view this as a weakness, we hope most will see it simply as an act of conscience from academics no longer able to remain silent,” the professors began.  

“These policies disproportionately punish small institutions, are not supported by evidence, employ flawed metrics with no end goal, and are unpopular with the public who funds the research,” the letter explained.  

“Many agree with us – including senior, tenured faculty – but will not speak publicly for fear of repercussions,” the letter revealed. “Specifically, they are scared even to question Tri-Council policies relating to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).” 

Currently, DEI quotas are mandated across Canada through the Canada Research Chairs program. Under the program, universities must meet specific hiring requirements, skewed in favor of racial minorities and those who identify as “LGBT.”

The letter cited various studies which revealed that the DEI mandates not only harm universities but lead to more discrimination.   

The professors referenced a case at Laurier University in Ontario where the institution sought to hire six black and six indigenous faculty. 

“During the process, an informal outside inquiry made on behalf of a promising black candidate had to be rebuffed because black people were ineligible,” the letter explained. “This open racial discrimination in the name of fighting systemic racism is one concrete example of negative impacts of EDI.” 

Similarly, a February research report from Wilfrid Laurier University social scientist David Millard Haskell, a signatory of the letter, found that there is “no evidence that EDI reduces bias or alters behavior.” 

“In fact, DEI interventions have been shown to do harm by increasing prejudice and activating bigotry,” the letter declared. 

The professor’s recommendation comes as Trudeau recently pledged $110 million of taxpayer money to hire DEI consultants tasked with looking into a supposed problem of “racism” in Canada. 

Indeed, the Trudeau government has spent over $30 million on DEI-affiliated contracts among many federal ministries since January 2019. 

This has led to an increase in woke ideology creeping into all parts of society. As LifeSiteNews reported recently, the University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver campus posted an opening for a research chair position that essentially barred non-homosexual white men from applying for the job. 

Signatories:

Geoff Horsman, PhD
Associate Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University

David Haskell, PhD
Associate Professor of Digital Media & Journalism, and Religion & Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University

Zachary Patterson, PhD
Professor, Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering, Concordia University

Stephen Lupker, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Western University

Lawrence M. Krauss, PhD
President, The Origins Project Foundation
Foundation Professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, retired

Kirsten Kramar, PhD
Mount Royal University

Stephen Quilley, PhD
Associate Professor of Social and Environmental Innovation, University of Waterloo

Scott Davies, PhD
Professor of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, University of Toronto

Edward Vrscay, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo

Martin Drapeau, PhD
Professor of Counselling Psychology and Psychiatry, McGill University

Frances Widdowson, PhD
Political Science professor

Brian F. Smith, PhD
Professor of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

Christopher Dummitt, PhD
Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University

Altay Coskun, PhD
Professor of Classical Studies, University of Waterloo

Ron Thomson, PhD
Professor and Chair of Applied Linguistics, Brock University

Chet Robie, PhD
Professor of Organizational Behaviour & Human Resource Management, Wilfrid Laurier University

Mark Collard, PhD
Canada Research Chair in Human Evolutionary Studies and Professor of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University

Janice Fiamengo, PhD
Professor of English, University of Ottawa, retired

Philip Carl Salzman, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, McGill University

Laurence Klotz, CM, MD, FRCSC
Professor of Surgery, University of Toronto
Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research
Chair, Council for Academic Freedom at University of Toronto (CAFUT)
Member, Order of Canada
Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Brad Fedy, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo

Scott Smith, PhD
Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University

Henry Wolkowicz, PhD
Professor of Combinatorics and Optimization, University of Waterloo

Gail S. K. Wolkowicz, PhD
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, McMaster University

François Charbonneau, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Rima Azar, PhD
Associate Professor of Health Psychology, Mount Allison University

Douglas W. Allen, PhD
Burnaby Mountain Professor, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University

Rachel Altman, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University

Alexandra Lysova, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University

Richard Frank, PhD
Associate Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University

John Craig, PhD
Professor, Department of History, Simon Fraser University

Dennis Sandgathe, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University

Mike Hart, PhD
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University

William McNally, PhD
Professor of Finance, Wilfrid Laurier University

Yannick Lacroix, PhD
Professor of Philosophy, Collège de Maisonneuve

Julie Guyot, PhD
Professor of History, Cégep Édouard-Montpetit

Leigh Revers, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Chemical & Physical Sciences, Institute of Management for Innovation, University of Toronto

Rob Whitley, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University

François Caron
Professor of Chemistry, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston
Emeritus Professor, Laurentian University

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta government’s new smartphone restrictions won’t eliminate digital distraction in classrooms

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson and Tegan Hill

Research has shown that simply having a smartphone nearby is enough to distract students from completing a task, and that it takes students 20 minutes to regain focus on learning after being distracted. And when schools removed smartphones from the classroom in the United Kingdom, Belgium and Spain, learning outcomes improved, especially for underperforming kids.

According to a new directive from the Smith government, beginning next September there will be restrictions on smartphones in Alberta schools. While the directive is light on details, one thing is clear—given mounting evidence that smartphone distraction can hinder academic performance, unless the province (or individual school authorities) ban smartphones in the classroom, students will continue to suffer the consequences.

Indeed, research has shown that simply having a smartphone nearby is enough to distract students from completing a task, and that it takes students 20 minutes to regain focus on learning after being distracted. And when schools removed smartphones from the classroom in the United Kingdom, Belgium and Spain, learning outcomes improved, especially for underperforming kids.

Moreover, the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report found a clear connection between smartphone distraction and declining student achievement, particularly in math. Specifically, 80 per cent of Canadian students report being distracted by the devices of other students in math class—and students who were distracted by smartphones in math class scored 15 points lower on PISA math tests than those who were not distracted. (PISA equates a 20-point drop in student test scores with one year of lost learning.)

Again, this is not just students distracted by their own devices, which are obvious attention-zappers for kids and teens. This is students distracted by the devices of other students. The research on digital distraction and its impact on student achievement makes clear that only a smartphone ban—with very few exceptions—will save kids from digital distraction.

And notably, Alberta’s PISA math scores have fallen 45 points in the last two decades, from 2003 to 2022, which PISA equates with more than two years of lost learning, with the decline predating COVID school closures.

The empirical evidence against smartphones in schools is mounting. But it’s also common sense, and people understand. The Alberta government’s own survey revealed that 90 per cent of more than 68,000 respondents—including parents, teachers, students and principals—had concerns about phone use in schools. This is consistent with other public opinion research in Canada. One survey showed 80 per cent of Canadians support banning phones in public schools. Another found that 51 per cent of Albertans said that phones should be banned in K-12 classrooms, and another 40 per cent said they should not be allowed unless directed by a teacher.

In 2019, the Ontario government issued a similar directive restricting smartphones in K-12 schools, which was nearly pointless because the government left the specifics up to school boards (just like the Smith government is now leaving the specifics up to school authorities in Alberta). Without being able to point to an overarching policy, Ontario teachers said they spent too much time surveilling and nagging in class, and many stopped trying altogether.

In its directive, the Smith government indicated there will be exceptions not only for reasonable health and medical needs (e.g. blood sugar monitoring) but also for “learning needs, and for educational purposes.” To actually eliminate digital distraction in the classroom, the provincial education ministry must support school authorities, who must support principals, who must support teachers to help enforce an actual ban.

While we should be skeptical of reflexive government “bans” in general, smartphones clearly impede student learning and socialization in schools. Banning smartphones in K-12 public government schools is the right move. But a patchwork approach, which accommodates endless exemptions, won’t free Alberta classrooms from the negative effects of digital distraction.

Continue Reading

Trending

X