Recently, the Obama administration released a new higher education policy.  It made headlines everywhere  because of its proposal to have free community college tuition.  I was immediately intrigued when I heard this.  The truth be told, I was shopping around the same idea across the province.  However, the idea faced significant resistance.  College administrators were concerned that it would hurt the reputation of community colleges, since people believe cost equals quality (i.e. cheaper means inferior, when college isn’t inferior; it’s just different).  College professors thought it would mean permanent austerity, which would negatively effect their workload issues.  University stakeholders were concerned about how they might be affected by the pull away from universities to our emphasis on colleges.  University funding is linked to enrollment, so you can see why they might be concerned.  Then there were the budget realities that we faced, which questioned whether Ontario could afford what amounts to a new investment when Ontario was broke.  The idea didn’t have much legs, and so we focused on other areas.

But what exactly was Obama saying?  Obama’s plan calls for college administrators to adopt a new outcome-based funding formula.  They are also supposed to adopt new and evidence based programs that boost graduation rates.  The plan also tries to incentivize students to complete their degrees sooner as long completion rates contribute to larger student debt.  And, if I need to mention it, there is lots here that matches the white paper I released a couple years ago on post-secondary education.  I should send Obama an invoice for my work!

However, here is the kicker.  The Obama plan calls for funding to only to go to “responsible students.”  What’s a responsible student according to Obama? It’s a student with a 2.5 GPA.  That’s a C+/B- student.  Wow!

Our white paper discussed this concept too.  We argued that institutions should have much more discretion in terms of the financial aid pot.  We suggested that our preference was grants over loans to reduce net tuition.  And we suggested that institutions knew their students better than OSAP, and if a student was failing, we expected that institutions would more proactively direct failing students to other programs so that we could continue assisting the student, and the student would be able to graduate with a degree or diploma sooner and enter the job market sooner.  Our expectation was that universities and colleges could better set these thresholds, and they could take into account the individual student’s circumstances, as they already do (i.e. marks may drop because of sustenance issues, mental health concerns, a significant life event, bereavement, etc.).   We were addressing a concern that a student could continue receiving financial aid if they failed three courses in a year.  That may be acceptable to some people and institutions, and not acceptable to others.  We thought we should at least debate it.

This whole concept prompted the Toronto Star to editorialize the idea as us suggesting that loans wouldn’t go to C students (we never, ever said that).  Student groups screamed at the thought that student financial aid would be tied to marks (again, not our point).  Conservative talk radio hosts loved the idea that only good students get grants and were disappointed that I would reject the Toronto Star’s characterization of our plan.  Oh, do I remember those days!

Here’s the amazing thing.  The most activist of the student groups, the Canadian Federation of Students, weren’t happy with our attempt to open that discussion.  They lobbied.  They protested.  They issued press releases.  They went on the talk radio tour too.  They passionately advocated against the notion of tying financial aid to student success.  But did you know what they did when Obama actually linked grants to “responsible students” who get higher than B- grades?  Wait for it… they issued a press release praising Obama and asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper to adopt that plan!  Whaaaat!?!?!?