Andrew M. Boggs
Andrew M. Boggs is a graduate of Queen’s University, Canada (BA 1996 http://www.queensu.ca/) where he was very active in university governance and student government. In 1998, he became the third Executive Director of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA http://www.ousa.ca).
In 1999, Andrew joined the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca), where he worked on policy issues ranging from university tuition to the creation of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (http://www.nosm.ca/), for which he received an Amethyst Award for excellence in public service (2006). During this time, he earned an MA in higher education studies from the Ontario Institute for the Study of Education (OISE http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise) at the University of Toronto (2007) and was made an honorary lifetime member of OUSA for his ongoing contributions to higher education issues (2007).
Andrew was named a Research Director with the new Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO http://www.heqco.ca) in July 2007. Andrew was a founding member of the Advisory Committee of the Centre for the Study of Students in Postsecondary Education (OISE), Vice-Chair and then Chair of the Queen’s Alma Mater Society Alumni Council (2005-08) and served on the Executive Committee of the Queen’s University Council (2006-09). Andrew began doctoral studies in higher education policy and history at Oxford University in October 2008 (http://www.ox.ac.uk/). He was the founding chair of the Oxford Student Higher Education Research Group (2009-2011) and served as a Junior Dean of New College, Oxford (2010-2012 http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/).
From March 2012-August 2014 Andrew was the Project Director of the UK Higher Education Better Regulation Group (http://www.hebetterregulation.ac.uk), an initiative to facilitate regulatory improvements, funded by Universities UK, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Scottish Funding Council, and the Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland. Andrew has held policy leadership roles with the Russell Group, the Quality Assurance Agency and the UK Department for Education. He has held senior leadership roles with Oxford University, St Mary's University Twickenham, and Kingston University London. He is currently the University Secretary of Royal Hollway, University of London (https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/about-us/more/governance-and-strategy/governance/senior-leadership-team/andrew-boggs/). Andrew is a Trustee of Queen's University's Bader College in Herstmonceux, East Sussex, and is an independent Director of Independent Higher Education, the sector representative group for independent higher education providers in the UK (https://ihe.ac.uk/about-us/meet-team/board/andrew-boggs).
Andrew's research interests include higher education history, government policy, university governance and the relationship between governments and universities. In particular, he is interested in developments in the 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries.
Address: c/o New College
University of Oxford
Holywell Street
Oxford OX1 3BN
United Kingdom
In 1999, Andrew joined the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca), where he worked on policy issues ranging from university tuition to the creation of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (http://www.nosm.ca/), for which he received an Amethyst Award for excellence in public service (2006). During this time, he earned an MA in higher education studies from the Ontario Institute for the Study of Education (OISE http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise) at the University of Toronto (2007) and was made an honorary lifetime member of OUSA for his ongoing contributions to higher education issues (2007).
Andrew was named a Research Director with the new Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO http://www.heqco.ca) in July 2007. Andrew was a founding member of the Advisory Committee of the Centre for the Study of Students in Postsecondary Education (OISE), Vice-Chair and then Chair of the Queen’s Alma Mater Society Alumni Council (2005-08) and served on the Executive Committee of the Queen’s University Council (2006-09). Andrew began doctoral studies in higher education policy and history at Oxford University in October 2008 (http://www.ox.ac.uk/). He was the founding chair of the Oxford Student Higher Education Research Group (2009-2011) and served as a Junior Dean of New College, Oxford (2010-2012 http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/).
From March 2012-August 2014 Andrew was the Project Director of the UK Higher Education Better Regulation Group (http://www.hebetterregulation.ac.uk), an initiative to facilitate regulatory improvements, funded by Universities UK, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Scottish Funding Council, and the Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland. Andrew has held policy leadership roles with the Russell Group, the Quality Assurance Agency and the UK Department for Education. He has held senior leadership roles with Oxford University, St Mary's University Twickenham, and Kingston University London. He is currently the University Secretary of Royal Hollway, University of London (https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/about-us/more/governance-and-strategy/governance/senior-leadership-team/andrew-boggs/). Andrew is a Trustee of Queen's University's Bader College in Herstmonceux, East Sussex, and is an independent Director of Independent Higher Education, the sector representative group for independent higher education providers in the UK (https://ihe.ac.uk/about-us/meet-team/board/andrew-boggs).
Andrew's research interests include higher education history, government policy, university governance and the relationship between governments and universities. In particular, he is interested in developments in the 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries.
Address: c/o New College
University of Oxford
Holywell Street
Oxford OX1 3BN
United Kingdom
less
InterestsView All (43)
Uploads
Papers by Andrew M. Boggs
Link https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/02/02/%EF%BF%BCkey-regulatory-questions-for-universities-on-freedom-of-speech/
Published 31 October 2022 https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/10/31/freedom-of-speech-lifts-and-the-importance-of-terminology/
Paper published by the Higher Education Policy Institute, 29 January 2021: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2021/01/29/student-contracts-an-opportunity-to-streamline-and-reduce-regulatory-burden-in-english-higher-education/?fbclid=IwAR261XE8sWwjSaeMYIMGWJgSEKDPvYia7OG9Rw9agzLvzcjKhkc-9HTHw9I
Link https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/02/02/%EF%BF%BCkey-regulatory-questions-for-universities-on-freedom-of-speech/
Published 31 October 2022 https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/10/31/freedom-of-speech-lifts-and-the-importance-of-terminology/
Paper published by the Higher Education Policy Institute, 29 January 2021: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2021/01/29/student-contracts-an-opportunity-to-streamline-and-reduce-regulatory-burden-in-english-higher-education/?fbclid=IwAR261XE8sWwjSaeMYIMGWJgSEKDPvYia7OG9Rw9agzLvzcjKhkc-9HTHw9I
Blues: A University System in Crisis (Côté & Allahar, 2007) went as far as to assert that professorial fear of student
evaluations is a major contributing factor to rampant grade inflation across North America. Controversy
centers on the (perceived) validity of student course/teaching evaluations: are students capable of providing accurate
assessments of teaching ability and course content? The answer to this question has practical implications.
For faculty, student evaluations can influence promotion and tenure decisions. For students, evaluations
may influence course selection and are often the only opportunity students have to provide feedback on quality
of instruction. This session will look at research on student course/teaching evaluation validity, including information
about instrument development, interpretation and factors often understood to influence evaluation results.
The presentation will follow a parliamentary debate format, with the presenters advocating for two sides of the
question: are student evaluations valid measures of teaching effectiveness? Participants will be given the opportunity
to offer their own thoughts and experiences (speeches from the floor) and to vote for the argument
they feel is more compelling (division of the house).
Student demand for articulated diploma-degree programs appears to be increasing (CUCC 2007). But recent study of demand patterns and student surveys suggest that it is not entirely clear where or what kinds of articulated and collaborative programs are most in demand (Lang 2008).
However, focusing on demand for increased college-university cooperation ignores an equally important question on the supply side of the equation: under what conditions does institutional cooperation blossom? This study proposes to address this question.
Others have written on the topic of college-university cooperation in Canada generally and Ontario specifically. Skolnik (1995, 2002, 2004a, 2004b) has written extensively on the history of the CAATs in Ontario and non-degree granting institutions in other jurisdictions, focusing on the evolution of new institutions in “degree-monopoly” environments. Stanyon (2003) and Renaud (2000) have tackled the systemic and institutional barriers to greater college-university articulation and cooperation particular to Ontario. Thompson (2007) discussed the lessons learned from Ontario’s government-imposed collaborative nursing experience. Each have focused on the barriers and difficulties faced by institutions in forging new relationships which allow movement between diploma and degree-stream programs or even creating new, collaborative programs.
This paper will examine the organizational and institutional conditions under which CAAT-university articulation and cooperation can and do take place. Floyd (2005) described three prevailing models of college-university cooperation; “articulation models”, “university centre models” and “concurrent use campuses”. We have determined that Ontario’s college-university cooperative arrangements fall into four types which may be drawn from Floyd’s models. These types are: bilateral articulation agreements, multilateral (or ‘open’) articulation strategies, new joint endeavors and special-mission institutions.
Using a series of institutional case studies with representation from each of our four collaborative types, this paper will examine and analyze the unique benefits and issues found in each type.
Ontario’s experience with college-university cooperation may be somewhat unique because it has highly independent universities and colleges within a binary higher education system. Therefore, it is important to put Ontario’s experience in the context of comparable jurisdictions which have taken a more systemic approach to college-university cooperation. To that end, this paper will also consider jurisdictions with a history of sector-wide institutional collaboration and/or articulation or have emerging policy in these areas. These jurisdictions will include Florida, California, British Columbia, Alberta and Scotland.
This research will focus on the following questions:
• What is the purpose of the collaborative arrangements now in place? Do they all have the same purpose?
• Is there evidence that they are achieving their intended purposes?
• For the Ontario arrangements: what are the prospects for expanding the current arrangements or replicating them at other institutions? What are the critical factors for success in doing so? What impediments might stand in the way of doing so?
• For the non-Ontario arrangements: what are the prospects for replicating these arrangements in Ontario? What are the critical factors for success in doing so? What impediments might stand in the way of doing so? What effect would this have on Ontario institutions, and in particular on their missions, autonomy, governance, and ability to serve students?
Given its seminal impact on the relationship between universities and government, the form and definition of a university in the Canadian context and public funding of universities, an understanding of the various factors which were acting upon the commission and its eventual recommendations will help with understanding Ontario university-government relationship one hundred years later.