Lack of Expertise Shows
                     in Early Proposals from
               Council on Post-Secondary Education

     Manitoba's university community expressed concern when the
Council on Post-Secondary Education (COPSE) was staffed by
individuals lacking experience with higher education teaching and
research.  What little public information is currently available
from COPSE indicates that these concerns were warranted.
     One example of COPSE's limited and perhaps politicized
background is shown in proposals for the re-allocation of funds. 
These proposals base re-allocation on novelty rather than on more
substantive academic and research considerations.  Specifically,
COPSE is proposing special funding envelopes that will
redistribute current money on the basis of the novelty of
programs rather than on quality or excellence.
     Other possible grounds for future redistribution of money
are mentioned, but most of these also represent shallow criteria
(e.g., cooperative programs between institutions, virtual
learning networks) rather than substantive principles.  Only at
the very end does COPSE mention research excellence, which should
be one of the two primary considerations in any re-allocation of
funds.  The second principle should be teaching excellence. 
People with strong backgrounds in higher education would be less
likely to structure post-secondary education around such perverse
values as novelty.
     The second example of COPSE's inadequate roots concerns
recent announcements about changes in the University of Manitoba
(UofM) Education program.  Irrespective of the appropriateness of
the changes, they appear to have been made by the Minister on the
advice of COPSE with little or no consultation with the Faculty
of Education at UofM and with little or no debate by UofM Senate,
in short with minimal consideration to the role that the current
arrangements play in the Teacher Education program at UofM.
     Although teacher certification and the manner of funding
these programs do comprise a somewhat special case and the
recommendations appear to follow from an earlier report, the
actions of COPSE and the Minister clearly seem to violate the
consultative spirit of Bill 32 and commitments made by the
Minister of Education and by COPSE to consultation before actions
were taken.
     If these early proposals and actions by COPSE are indicative
of its future mode of operation, then Manitobans will have to be
vigilant that higher education in the province is not seriously
damaged.  High quality decisions cannot be made in a closed and
non-consultative manner by people with weak foundations in higher
education teaching and research.

Jim Clark
Winnipeg
30 October 1997