What’s in a Name? A Historical Analysis of Seneca College’s Journey Towards Increased Institutional Differentiation within the Ontario Postsecondary System 2001-2012

Pursuant to Ontario’s Postsecondary Education Choice and Excellence (PECE) Act, 2000 and the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, the then Progressive Conservative provincial government announced in August, 2002, that the “doors were open” for colleges to submit proposals for formal differentiated status. In November, 2002, in response to this invitation, Seneca College proposed a business case and strategy for formal differentiated status. Seneca’s resultant, approved “Differentiated College Mandate Accountability Agreement” committed the college to a differentiation vision which included an expanded academic mandate, pathways and partnerships with other institutions, increased applied research and an “on again, off again” pursuit of polytechnic status. Using a historical case analysis, Seneca’s intent and rationale in pursuing this vision during the study period are examined in the context of Ontario’s broader postsecondary system design. Based on documentary analysis and interviews with key internal and external informants, the study finds that Seneca’s overarching goal was to increase access, choice and degree-completion options for Ontario’s postsecondary students, and that the college made considerable ongoing contributions to the province in each of these differentiation areas. Seneca’s success in affecting broader system design change, up to an including the creation of a new institutional category of institutions, was seen to be limited by underlying competitive dynamics among and between colleges and universities, turnover of key champions both within government and in the institutions, and the perceived influence over government by Ontario’s university presidents. Seneca (along with some other institutions) was seeking a recognizable branding for its differentiated status that would distinguish it from both the other CAATs and the universities. A perceived hierarchy of institutions both within and across the two sectors, and the resultant competitive dynamics therein, likely constrained these efforts. Any future postsecondary reforms that are perceived to alter the strength and clarity of Ontario’s binary system (and the convergence of institutions within each sector), would require bold government vision and political support in order to succeed.Ph.D