The Ontario Student Assistance Plan, the primary means by which the province helps its low- and middle-income students pay for post secondary education, hasn’t updated its needs assessment model to reflect the current cost of living for students, according to an Ontario student advocacy group.
“The current needs assessment formula makes no distinction between different regions in Ontario and its cost of living in those places, meaning the system predicts that the cost of a student at the University of Toronto campus living in downtown Toronto, is the same as the cost of living for a student living in Thunder Bay at Lakehead University,” said the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) in a statement.
The Ontario Student Assistance Plan (OSAP) is a needs based program run by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and funded by the federal and provincial governments. It provides loans, grants, scholarships and bursaries to help students pay for tuition, books, mandatory fees, living costs and transportation.
But when it comes to living costs, OUSA said students are expected to feed themselves on $7.50 per day.
“Not only is that amount grossly inaccurate and a nearly inhumane expectation of young adults, if a student were actually to live on those amounts, they would almost surely not be receiving proper nutrition and eating a regular balanced diet,” said OUSA. “This is just one of the many problems with the current OSAP system. Its failures must be highlighted to the government so they will fix it.”
So OUSA has decided to launch Food for Thought, a campaign it said is designed to emphasize the problems with OSAP. During March, some students from across the province will try to eat on $7.50 per day.
“They will be blogging and vlogging about their experience, struggle and challenges of living on the OSAP needs assessment formula,” said OUSA.
Ok, I think John Bonnar's coverage of all this stupid shit OUSA does is actually some kind of practicle joke.
Really? I'm sure Macleans has a position for right wing stooges to write blog posts like this on their website, Rabble can do so much better than this useful rehashing of a regressive organization's talking points.
Typical CFS tactics - trying to smear people and shut them up. And all for the sake of pursuing a bureaucratic turf war.
Frankly, I am a bit stunned by John Bonnar's uncritical coverage of OUSA - which has consistently advocated a pro-Harris and pro-McGuinty line of supporting tuition fee increases and larger student loans. I have followed Bonnar's photo journalism for years and I have always been impressed by the profile he gives to the most progressive causes and organizations, even when the issue isn't well known (ie. Street Health's firing of Gaetan Heroux).
So what gives now? The OUSA doesn't lobby to make education more affordable, they lobby for more student loans (and sometimes grants), but all of the financial aid (and do-gooder measures to improve food banks) in the world will never have a positive impact on those who need it most if tuition fees are allowed to continue to increase so dramatically. Fee increases artificially increase financial need and then government apologists like OUSA are there to offer more student debt. Some help!
Why do low income kids have to graduate with a mountain of debt that will negatively impact their career and family choices? Especially when you consider that those who earn less after graduation (women and visible minorities most notably) will pay more for their education over a longer period of time through the compound interest. I can see why the McGuinty government might thoughtlessly advocate such regressive public policy, but why would any self-described "student representatives" undermine their own member's interests so blatantly?
When OUSA was founded in the early 90's (I was a student at U of T where we fought off membership), they supported an immediate tuition fee increase of 30%. Today OUSA reps declare their support for tuition fees indexed to CPI. Well, this is bullshit. OUSA's first goal was achieved over and again! Fees have increased by 200% since the early 1990s - increasing way faster than CPI - and by endorsing further "inflationary" fee increases, they are saying that Ontario's current fee levels (which are the highest in the country) are just right. At best, they are endorsing the STATUS QUO. In fact, their foodbank campaign and support for income contingent loans are simply strategies to make the current access crisis more palatable.
I still haven't answered my own question: why would these self-described "student representatives" undermine their own member's interests so blatantly?
Because they aren't student activists, they are careerists who are trying to land themselves jobs!
The first Executive Director of OUSA was hired out of his position by the Harris government's own Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities at a time when university operating budgets were being slashed by 20% (he still works there today). As near as I can tell, at least 2 other OUSA E.D.s were also hired by the Harris government, one was hired by Bob Rae to lead the ill-famed Rae Review and then by Michael Ignatieff. As recently as last week an OUSA staffer was hired by the same Ministry of Training Colleges and Universiites (this time under the McGuinty government) that cut the popular tuition fee freeze in 2006 with no objection from OUSA.
How can you put pressure on a government and slip them a resume at the same time?
No wonder OUSA news releases never challenge bad government policy of any kind.
I think this kind of opportunism needs to be challenged on Rabble, not given a soapbox and a megaphone (oh, wait, OUSA reps have never touched a megaphone in their lives!).
Where is my first comment? Who deleted it?
I was the first to post on Feburary 29 about how this read like a cut and paste job off of an OUSA press release and how crappy Rabble's post-secondary education coverage was.
But my post was deleted. It wasn't inflamatory. It wasn't personal. I didn't sware.
Rabble, it is disaapoining that you for not being a place for discussion or alternatives and just regurgitating the policy positions of the status quo. Litterally cut and pasting off their press releases.
Rabble, this is doubly schocking that you are now deleting progressive, critical comments. The irony of censoring critism which was concerned about a *lack of critique* on Rabble.
As is common with blogs, the author controls comments. As a result of posting anything about OUSA this blogger has been subjected to viscious personal attacks by email and in comments. As a result, he (I presume - I've been in touch with him to verify this) has been deleting all comments - not just yours, but comments also criticising your comments.
As the author of the blog, he is within his rights to do this, though clearly it isn't the usual rabble practice.
Your concerns are noted however, and other CFS supporters have also noted this concern on our moderated discussion boards.
Thank you, I read up on this debate at in the conversation here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/why-right-wing-student-grou...
That being said it is disheartening that critism is just seen as a personal attack. I don't it had anything personal in it, names or otherwise.
Thanks loverOfighter - just to clarify, there were personal attacks - but I didn't mean to suggest that your comments were.
Funny, when the Ontario NDP or the CCPA call for a tuition freeze the CFS types don't flood rabble (and babble) with personal attacks on anybody who dares to report it uncritically. Nor do they attack the NDP and CCPA as "right-wing" or "regressive" because they don't call for free tuition.
It seems that only when OUSA calls for a tuition freeze do the knives come out. This is more about an organizational vendetta than about political principle.
Hi M. Spector,
The OUSA hasn't called for a "freeze". They've apparently called for an increase in fees in line with the cost of living. That call implicitly recognizes that current fee levels are appropriate, and that they should not fall in real terms. It's a formulaic abandonment of the struggle for lower or no tuition fees.
As for the NDP or CCPA or whoever, if they support increasing fees by the cost of living, they should be subject to the same criticism. Although I must say, I would hope that neither the NDP nor the CCPA would justify their stand with offensive arguments like that used by OUSA:
I'm sure you'll agree.
It's worth noting that the CFS was one of the biggest opponents of the Bob Rae NDP government because of his tuition fee increases. So I'm not sure where M. Spector is coming from.
Perhaps not, but I know where you're coming from. It's clear what's going on here. Your organization is using rabble to pursue a vendetta against a rival group.
It's obviously not about a couple of percentage points in tuition fees. The aim of the CFS appears to be to suppress any mention of OUSA that is not accompanied by denunciations of "right wing stooges".
Calling for the head of John Bonnar and comparing Rabble to Maclean's is completely over the top. I shudder to think what you lot would be saying if Bonnar had actually said anything uncomplimentary about the CFS!
M. Spector: Judging by your comments about "typical CFS tactics", it seems like you might have a vendetta of your own.
Unless you disagree with the comments about OUSA and believe that their advocacy for tuition fee hikes is progressive, I'm not sure what your point is. It's pretty common for progressives to critique centrist or right-wing advocacy groups on Rabble, without being accused of engaging in "bureaucratic turf wars". If someone critiques the CAW on Rabble, should they be dismissed as a hack from another union, or should their criticisms be addressed and debated?
Please try to stick to the issues.
Speaking of sticking to the issues, there's nothing in Bonnar's blog post about tuition fees.
The facts are that OSAP is inadequately funded and it attempts to impose an unrealistic standard of living on the students who receive its assistance.
When a student group announces a public relations campaign to expose OSAP's inadequacy, CFS somehow feels the need to condemn the group as "unprogressive" and to denounce Rabble for publicizing the campaign.
Either the CFS strategy is to use smear and innuendo against anyone who suggests improving OSAP to the point of anything short of CFS's idea of perfection, or CFS is pursuing a grudge against OUSA in particular. Either way, it comes across as petty and sectarian.
Hey M. Spector - why don't you respond to my post? You'll have to deal with the content, because I'm way too old and not well enough educated to be a CFS mouthpiece.
If anyone wants to see the offensive OUSA statements I was quoting, they can find them in this oddly complimentary blog post by John Bonnar dated Feb. 8, 2010, where he headlines their proposals as "radical":
Student organization's report urges radical changes in post-secondary education
M. Spector - OSAP primarily consists of loans. While there may be bad blood between OUSA and the CFS, don't you think it's fair comment to point out that calling for increases in OSAP means advocating increased student debt, and that this is hardly a progressive position?
I'm not here to advocate on behalf of OUSA. I don't agree with their positions on many issues, including tuition fees. I wish they were more radical. But their policy is set by their student members in reasonably democratic fashion, as far as I am aware. Unlike some others I could mention, I don't go out of my way to make hysterical denunciations of OUSA when they announce a project that to me seems at worst innocuous, and at best potentially embarrassing to the McGuinty government.
OSAP is not just student loans. It provides loans, grants, scholarships and bursaries based on a formula for calculating a student's needs. Also, many universities use OSAP eligibility as a screening device for their own needs-based bursary programs - i.e., if you don't qualify under OSAP's criteria, the university won't even consider you for a bursary.
The OSAP needs formula assumes that a student needs $7.50 a day to buy food. As Bonnar tells us, OUSA has announced a campaign designed to demonstrate that that figure is unrealistically low. The effect of having an eligibility formula that underestimates the amount of money required for a student to eat is to reduce the amount of loans, grants, scholarships and bursaries that students are eligible for. I don't know about anyone else, but I consider this a Bad Thing.
As the OUSA press release states:
I don't think students should have to go into debt to get an education. Unfortunately, "financial assistance" for students in this province often means loans. I don't think students are helped in any way by placing unreasonable limits on the amount they can qualify to borrow or receive as bursaries, grants, or scholarships.
Kudos to John Bonnar for giving this campaign publicity. And shame on those who seek to use it as an occasion for attacks on rival student organizations.
Thank you so much for this post! forex en ligne