Defining Access Access to post-secondary education has received more attention in the past few years, with the Canadian Government, in particular, undertaking a number of Recognizing the studies of who does and does not attend post- importance of an secondary institutions. [...] While these are all important factors in understanding access to post-secondary education, this review of the literature will focus primarily on the socio-economic status (or class) of individuals and their families in the attempt to provide a broader understanding of how class relates to post-secondary participation. [...] The body of the review will address three elements of access to post-secondary education: 1) planning to attend a post-secondary institution; 2) socio-economic status and attending a post-secondary institution, including accessing professional degree programmes; and 3) socio-economic status and completing a post-secondary education. [...] By reviewing the literature on access to post-secondary education, it is hoped that it will be possible to understand some of the factors influencing decisions to attend, attendance, and completion of post-secondary education. [...] According to researchers using the 1999 Survey of Approaches to Educational Planning, less than one-fifth of families with incomes of less than $30,000 were saving for the post-secondary education of their children, while about two-thirds of those with incomes of more than $80,000 were doing so (Corak et al, 2003; Junor & Usher, 2002).3 Parents with higher levels of education are more likely both.

In fact, Saskatchewan students now pay significantly higher tuition and fees than do most students in the U. S. The average tuition and other fees at public four-year universities in the United States this year are shown in Table 2. The average tuition and additional compulsory fees at Saskatchewan's three universities, $5,526, are higher than tuition and fees in three of the six regions in the U. [...] Tuition and fees in each of the various colleges/faculties at U of S and U of R are shown in Table 3. Tuition fees in Dentistry at the U of S are the highest in Canada. [...] Revenue for capital projects at the U of S has increased at an average rate of 60% in each of the years from 1999-00 to 2003-04, amounting to a total of $45.8 million in 2003-04, according to the annual U of S financial statements. [...] The majority of this funding comes from the province, though the construction of the CLS synchrotron at the U of S has resulted in large increases in federal contributions. [...] Thus, while total provincial funding for universities has increased over the past decade more in Saskatchewan than in other provinces, a significant portion of the increase in the past five years has been for research and capital expenses, and not for the operation of educational programs at the universities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge assistance received in the compilation of relevant statistical and analytical information from the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of BC, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC (formerly the College Institute Educators' Association), the Canadian Federation of Students, and the Canadian Association of University Teac [...] The content, opinions and any errors in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CCPA. [...] It considers two aspects of operating funding: the amount of operating funding for students that are in the system; and the amount required to support greater capacity (the number of seats in the system). [...] Next, we review the data on provincial grants to post-secondary institutions, accounting for changes in the number of seats in the post-secondary system and for inflation. [...] With regard to public financing of the post-secondary system, we are interested in both the amount of funding for students in the system, and, because there are far fewer seats than potential students, the amount of funding that goes toward increasing capacity, or the number of seats in the system.

" "Rewarding Strivers" presents provocative research and analysis that provides a blueprint for the way forward."--William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions, Harvard University "The terrible 'secret' of higher education in America is that too few students from poorer families have access to it.... Kahlenberg again gathers the best thinkers on how to challenge this status quo."--Anthony Marx, President, Amherst College Today, higher education is a major force in promoting social mobility, yet colleges and universities seem more concerned with prestige than finding ways to make higher learning more accessible. Rewarding Strivers outlines two high-profile models that colleges and universities can follow in making the American Dream a realistic one for all students. Former New York Times education writer Edward B. Fiske (author of The Fiske Guide to Colleges) explores an exciting new effort to provide extra financial aid and academic support to low-income students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He finds that the "Carolina Covenant" has much to teach public and private universities across the country. In order to benefit from financial aid and support, low-income students first must be admitted to college. In a chapter that is likely to prove highly controversial, Georgetown University's Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl articulate a coherent and concrete way for colleges and universities to provide a leg up to economically disadvantaged students in selective college admissions. The authors make an important contribution to the nation's raging debate over affirmative action by calling on universities to expand preferences beyond race to also include socioeconomic status, and outlining how such a program could work in practice.

The debate over whether class size matters for teaching and learning is one of the most enduring, and aggressive, in education research. Teachers often insist that small classes benefit their work. But many experts argue that evidence from research shows class size has little impact on pupil outcomes, so does not matter, and this dominant view has informed policymaking internationally. Here, the lead researchers on the world’s biggest study into class size effects present a counter-argument. Through detailed analysis of the complex relations involved in the classroom they reveal the mechanisms that support teachers’ experience, and conclude that class size matters very much indeed. Drawing on 20 years of systematic classroom observations, surveys of practitioners, detailed case studies and extensive reviews of research, Peter Blatchford and Anthony Russell contend that common ways of researching the impact of class size are limited and sometimes misguided. While class size may have no direct effect on pupil outcomes, it has, they say, significant force through interconnections with classroom processes. In describing these connections, the book opens up the everyday world of the classroom and shows that the influence of class size is everywhere. It impacts on teaching, grouping practices and classroom management, the quality of peer relations, tasks given to pupils, and on the time teachers have for marking, assessments and understanding the strengths and challenges for individual pupils. From their analysis, the authors develop a new social pedagogical model of how class size influences work, and identify policy conclusions and implications for teachers and schools.

An important challenge to what currently masquerades as conventional wisdom regarding the teaching of writing. There seems to be widespread agreement that—when it comes to the writing skills of college students—we are in the midst of a crisis. In Why They Can't Write, John Warner, who taught writing at the college level for two decades, argues that the problem isn't caused by a lack of rigor, or smartphones, or some generational character defect. Instead, he asserts, we're teaching writing wrong. Warner blames this on decades of educational reform rooted in standardization, assessments, and accountability. We have done no more, Warner argues, than conditioned students to perform "writing-related simulations," which pass temporary muster but do little to help students develop their writing abilities. This style of teaching has made students passive and disengaged. Worse yet, it hasn't prepared them for writing in the college classroom. Rather than making choices and thinking critically, as writers must, undergraduates simply follow the rules—such as the five-paragraph essay—designed to help them pass these high-stakes assessments. In Why They Can't Write, Warner has crafted both a diagnosis for what ails us and a blueprint for fixing a broken system. Combining current knowledge of what works in teaching and learning with the most enduring philosophies of classical education, this book challenges readers to develop the skills, attitudes, knowledge, and habits of mind of strong writers.

Student Success in College describes policies, programs, and practices that a diverse set of institutions have used to enhance student achievement. This book clearly shows the benefits of student learning and educational effectiveness that can be realized when these conditions are present. Based on the Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) project from the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University, this book provides concrete examples from twenty institutions that other colleges and universities can learn from and adapt to help create a success-oriented campus culture and learning environment.