My MRP on SMA3
My MRP on SMA3 was finally published in Brock University’s Digital Repository, I’m proud to share my Major Research Project (MRP) for my Master of Education in Administration and Leadership.
I started my comparative analysis of Ontario Universities 2017–2020 Strategic Mandate Agreement (SMA2) documents because I felt that so many measures were obtuse and used baselines and targets that were relative to information that could not be accessed externally, greatly diminishing the public accountability the SMA process purported to facilitate. My assumption was simply seeing these 244 institutional targets and metrics (228 unique) would demonstrate this. This led to a directed reading and this blog. College metrics for SMA2 were always more standardized and the metrics chosen better reflected well-known PSE measures.
My MRP was intended to serve as a form of handbook for the Ontario SMA3 process, again primarily focussing on the university sector, but taking advantage of the closer alignment to the College program.
This SMA3 Handbook blog series will look at all 10 metrics in a way that better matches the format, but if you’d prefer an analysis based on Schneider and Ingram’s (1993) social construction of target populations, then I recommend this 173-page PDF.
SMA3 and PBF
My research discussed the 2020–2025 SMA3’s 10 new Performance-Based Funding (PBF) metrics that will govern up to 60% of provincial transfers to universities and colleges. SMA3 also introduced an institutionally allocated metric weighing scheme.
PBF is a growing trend in PSE funding. There are existing PBF models available to compare Ontario’s new metrics against, and experience with PBF in practice for funding teaching and research across the United States and some research funding models in Europe.
PBF has been implemented in other jurisdictions as a tool for the strategic allocation of funding in the service of neoliberal new public management (NPM) conceptions of accountability for both public funds spent and the actions of public institutions in the service of political leadership (Dougherty & Natow, 2020). The primary justification for PBF PSE funding is the efficiency of existing funds rather than adding funds to PSE systems (Adam, 2020; Dougherty & Natow, 2020). As described in the 2020–2025 Strategic Mandate Agreement Template, Ontario’s implementation tasks the institutions themselves with the responsibility to negotiate targets for each of the 10 metrics with MCU and then meet them (MCU, 2020, as cited in Ryerson University, 2020; see also University of Windsor, 2020). Research on the application of PBF in other jurisdictions suggests that there can be both positive and negative effects, and that much relies on the institutions’ performance, as intended, but also on what metrics are adopted and how they are measured and administrated.
Most attribute the motivation for adopting PBF to neoliberal ideologies, such as NPM and its accountability objectives, within this ideology. As a result, negative impacts of PBF are expected and seen as a cause for regular revision, not a fatal flaw of PBF or performance management (Adam, 2020; Dougherty & Natow, 2019).
Alberta was the first province in Canada to adopt a PBF model for PSE in the 1990s by allocating small strategic funding envelopes that were competitively awarded, with the performance component representing 5% of overall sector funding in the 1990s and for some institutions it was as high as 20% (Barnetson, 1999). A report commissioned by Alberta’s Minister of Advanced Education in 2005 placed system-wide funding related to the competitive performance envelope at 2% (Alberta Advanced Education, 2005). Ontario is the first province to consider transitioning from a majority enrolment-based funding model to a predominantly PBF model. Previously, under the SMA2 model, only 4% of the 2017–2019 funding model in Ontario was based on performance (MTCU, 2015). Alberta subsequently announced its intent to implement a base PBF model that could account for as much as 40% of funding in response to recommendations from the 2019 MacKinnon Report on Alberta’s Finances recommendations (Government of Alberta, 2020). Manitoba’s premier is considering a Tennessee-influenced PBF model (Froese, 2020).
What I concluded
My research found that metrics created for SMA3 are justified only by their adherence to neoliberal new public management objectives; not PBF literature. SMA3 fails to incorporate established mitigations against access bias while introducing the risk of untested and ideologically motivated metrics.
Adam, Edmund. “‘Governments Base Performance-Based Funding on Global Rankings Indicators’: A Global Trend in Higher Education Finance or a Global Rankings Literature Fiction? A Comparative Analysis of Four Performance-Based Funding Programs.” International Journal of Educational Development 76 (2020): 102197-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102197.
Alberta Advanced Education. “Advanced Education: A Cross-Jurisdictional Overview of Accessibility, Affordability and Quality.” Edmonton, AB: Alberta Advanced Education, 2005.
Barnetson, Robert J. “A Review of Alberta’s Performance-Based Funding Mechanism.” Quality in Higher Education 5, no. 1 (1999): 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832990050104.
Clare, Matt. “Exploring Ontario Universities’ Strategic Mandate Agreements’ New Performance-Based Model in Relation to SMA’s Original Differentiation Goals.” Brock University, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10464/15139.
Dougherty, Kevin J., and Rebecca S. Natow. “Performance-Based Funding for Higher Education: How Well Does Neoliberal Theory Capture Neoliberal Practice?” Higher Education 80, no. 3 (December 23, 2019): 457–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00491-4.
Froese, Ian. “Manitoba Looks to Tennessee Model in Efforts to Tailor Post-Secondary Education to Labour Market | CBC News.” CBC, October 22, 2020. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-tennessee-model-higher-learning-performance-based-wfpcbc-cbc-1.5768684.
Government of Alberta. “Transforming Post-Secondary Funding,” January 20, 2020. https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=67447A51C2BC1-CBF8-78E9-C6759CE8A736486C.
Office of the Provost & Vice President, Academic of Ryerson University. “SMA3: An Overview.” PDF. 2019 Consultation Document, 2019. https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/provost/PDFs/Overview-B-24oct2019final.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. “Focus on Outcomes, Centre on Students: Perspectives on Evolving Ontario’s University Funding Model.” Toronto, ON: MTCU, 2015. http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/audiences/universities/uff/UniversityFundingFormulaConsultationReport_2015.pdf.
“Ontario’s Postsecondary Education System Performance/Outcomes Based Funding – Technical Manual.” Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, September 2019. http://www.uwindsor.ca/strategic-mandate-agreement/sites/uwindsor.ca.strategic-mandate-agreement/files/performance_outcomes-based_funding_technical_manual_-_v1.0_-_final_september_419_en.pdf.
Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87, no. 2 (1993): 334–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044.
