Canadian Federal Policy and Postsecondary Education

Abstract

It arises from a collaborative project, funded by the Ford Foundation, through the Alliance for International Higher Education Policy Studies (AIHEPS), designed to explore the "performance" of higher education in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Led by University of British Columbia's, [Donald Fisher], the book has an astonishing ten authors, making it, possibly, a miracle of consensus building. Because there is no foreword or acknowledgment page, the nature of each author's contribution is unknown, and perhaps unknowable.

What is known, according to the study, is that Canadian federalism has produced a "patchwork" of policies in post-secondary education, characterized by episodic bursts of activity, overlapping jurisdictional tensions between Ottawa and the provinces, and too little coherent national planning. Furthermore, the potent force of "neo-liberalism," which drives universities into the marketplace and increases their dependence on the private sector, now infuses government policy, particularly in the world of scientific research.

More importantly, I believe the book's main arguments - that neo liberalism is pervasive in policy making and Canada lacks a national post-secondary educational plan - trap the authors in an unresolved contradiction. If the federal government has proven to be a prime agent of "marketization," and shows no signs, in Canada or elsewhere, of abandoning this agenda, then why wouldn't more federal intrusion merely extend the influence of neo-liberalism on higher education? Arguably, from a policy perspective, the universities' best protection against this trend is a vigorous defence of their autonomy, or what's left of it. The authors are surely aware of the ways in which highly centralized states (Australia, New Zealand, England, among many others) have eroded institutional and academic self-governance in the name of planning and accountability.