BC Post-Secondary at a Crossroads: Navigating Core Tensions Ahead

On November 25th, the Government of British Columbia, through the Ministry of Post Secondary Education and Future Skills, announced a financial sustainability review of the province’s post-secondary system. In the news release, Minister Jessie Sunner explained the purpose of the review and confirmed that it will be led by Don Avison, KC, former BC Deputy Minister and former board chair of Emily Carr University of Art and Design. BC’s decision to proceed with this review is more than a technical exercise; it signals the government’s acknowledgment that the current model is no longer sustainable – fiscally, operationally, or politically.

The mandate of the review is to examine governance, operations, program delivery, and financial sustainability across the public post-secondary system. This review also sits within a broader political and fiscal context. The BC Government finds itself in a challenging fiscal situation with many competing priorities looking for further financial support. A potential early election makes the short-term prioritization of these competing forces even more critical.

The government’s message to institutions is that new ongoing money is likely to be limited, and that government will instead look to post-secondary institutions to help create fiscal room through efficiencies, consolidation, and program change. The upshot for BC’s post-secondary sector is that it needs to show government it is doing its part to address the current challenges, while positioning itself as a higher political priority than it currently is.

Different Systems, Same Pressures

Over the last two years, Ontario’s colleges and universities have been working through a similar reckoning. Structural deficits, international student revenue (which patched over those deficits falling precipitously), frozen or constrained tuition and operating grants, and government-driven efficiency reviews have forced institutions to rethink how they operate.

Across that experience, we have observed a consistent pattern: institutions that arrive early with a coherent plan, clear narrative, and value proposition, tend to help shape the outcome. Institutions that wait to see what government will propose are more likely to have solutions imposed on them.

BC starts from a different political culture and a somewhat different system design. In our view, however, the pressures are familiar:

• Heavy reliance on international students in parts of the system
• Significant regional diversity, from large research universities in the Lower Mainland to rural colleges that anchor single industry communities
• Rising expectations around reconciliation, access, and alignment with provincial economic priorities
• A lack of understanding by government of how critical post-secondary institutions are to their key political and policy priorities

Taken together, the Ontario experience and BC’s starting point suggest that this review is unlikely to be decided on spreadsheets alone. It is more likely to turn on how well institutions navigate a small set of core tensions, and how credibly they balance student centred and efficiency centred perspectives.

Six Core Tensions Likely to Shape the Review

The sustainability review will not produce a single right answer for BC’s post-secondary system, nor will it be the end of the political debate. Instead, it will be the next chapter in a multi-year process of change that will force institutions and government to confront a series of durable tensions that sit at the heart of how the system works.

These are not problems that can be solved once and set aside. They are tradeoffs between competing goods: access and affordability, local responsiveness and system coherence, reconciliation and fiscal restraint, and stability and structural change. What matters is whether these tensions are surfaced and managed deliberately, or left to be resolved by blunt fiscal decisions and political pressure.

1) Service access vs cost reduction

Student centred perspective: Students expect reliable access to critical services. That includes advising, mental health support, Indigenous services, co-op and career offices, and libraries, in formats that reflect BC’s geography and diversity. For many rural and northern learners, the existence of a local campus or centre is what makes post-secondary possible at all.

Efficiency centred perspective: From a system point of view, we expect government and reviewers to look closely at underused facilities, overlapping service points and program offerings, and high-cost delivery models. There is likely to be pressure to consolidate locations, centralize some services, and shift interactions to digital channels. There may also be interest in more common platforms and standardized processes behind the scenes.

Leaders will need to define, in their own context, what minimum viable access actually means, and demonstrate where thoughtful consolidation and standardization of core services could free up resources to improve, rather than diminish, front line support. These choices are also likely to play out differently across regions and ridings, shaping how local MLAs, mayors, and community leaders respond to any proposed changes to campuses or services.

2) In person engagement vs digital delivery

Student centred perspective: Students still value meaningful in-person experiences. Labs, studios, applied and work-integrated learning, and informal campus life all contribute to belonging, persistence, and learning outcomes. For many programs such as skilled trades and healthcare, hands-on learning is essential and cannot simply be moved online.

Efficiency centred perspective: At the same time, digital delivery, hybrid models, and online services are among the few levers that can increase reach and flexibility without proportional increases in cost. In a province as large and varied as BC, digital tools can also support more consistent service standards across multiple sites.

The key question is not digital or in person. The more useful questions are for whom, for what, and at what cost. Institutions that can clearly explain which courses and services can shift to digital channels, and which must remain in person, are likely to be in a stronger position when the review turns to opportunities for savings and system redesign. Hybrid delivery options also unlock potential collaboration across institutions, the type of thing governments looking to squeeze value out of public dollars like to see.

3) Program breadth vs academic streamlining

Student centred perspective: Program breadth supports student choice, regional responsiveness, and equity of access to high demand fields without requiring students to move across the province. Some of the most important offerings for BC’s future are small and specialized. They are often tied closely to local industries, community needs, and Indigenous priorities.

Efficiency centred perspective: The mandate of the review includes program delivery and financial sustainability. In our view, this is likely to lead to a focus on reducing program duplication, aligning offerings with labour market needs, and confronting low demand or structurally unviable programs. That could mean consolidation, shared delivery across institutions, or exiting some offerings altogether.

Institutions that arrive with a clear view of their distinctive role, and with pragmatic ideas for collaboration and rationalization that they can live with, are more likely to influence the outcome. If those conversations are left entirely to the system level, the program map is more likely to be redrawn without local input.

4) Reconciliation and Indigenization vs financial constraint

Student and community centred perspective: In BC, reconciliation and Indigenization are not optional add-ons. Institutions are expected to give real effect to provincial and national commitments, including DRIPA, Indigenous language and culture revitalization, Indigenous governed programs, and land-based learning. For many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, post-secondary education is key for self-determination and capacity building.

Efficiency centred perspective: Many of the most meaningful initiatives in this space are resource intensive and not easily scaled. They often sit in small programs or specialized supports that can appear vulnerable in a narrow financial triage. In the current fiscal climate, there is a real risk that a focus on short term savings could unintentionally undermine long term commitments to reconciliation and Indigenous success.

This tension is likely to require institutions and government to be explicit about which investments must be protected or grown, even when the overall trajectory is cost-containment. It also invites creativity about shared models, Indigenous-led partnerships, and different ways of measuring value and success. How this tension is handled will be closely watched by Indigenous governments and partnersm and will influence whether the review is seen as advancing or undermining the province’s reconciliation commitments.

5) Institutional and community voice vs provincial direction

Institutional and community perspective: Boards, senates, Indigenous councils, student associations, faculty, staff, and local partners all see their institutions as anchored in place. They have formal and informal roles in setting direction, protecting academic quality, and representing community interests. We anticipate strong expectations that these voices will be meaningfully involved in any major changes to programs, campuses, or services.

Provincial perspective: The Province, looking at the system as a whole, is likely to seek clearer alignment with economic, regional development, and social policy priorities. This could show up through mandate letters, funding conditions, new accountability tools, or more direct expectations about program mix and delivery. From Victoria’s perspective, system outcomes and fiscal sustainability are likely to weigh heavily alongside individual institutional stories.

The challenge is to avoid a trust gap. If students, faculty, and communities feel that outcomes were predetermined, or that institutional autonomy and local governance were bypassed, the legitimacy of the review is likely to be questioned. If government feels that institutions are unwilling to face structural issues, it may be more inclined to act unilaterally. The way this balance is managed will shape the tone of engagement between institutions and central agencies, and will determine whether the process feels like a shared effort to fix the system or a series of one-sided directives.

6) Workforce stability vs structural change

Student and institutional perspective: Stable, experienced faculty and staff are central to quality, continuity of relationships, and student outcomes. Morale, burnout, and retention are already concerns after years of pandemic disruption and fiscal pressure. Major changes to programs, campuses, or service models can create uncertainty and anxiety among the people students rely on most.

Efficiency and system perspective: Compensation and staffing patterns account for a large share of institutional budgets. For that reason, we expect that any serious sustainability plan will involve some combination of workforce resizing, role redesign, new delivery models, and different uses of shared services or contractors.

In our view, this tension is likely to play out through collective bargaining, change management, and the pace at which reforms can reasonably be implemented. Institutions will need to be honest about what is possible, while also investing in communication, support, and engagement with the people who will be asked to deliver a new model on the ground.

A Practical Agenda for BC Institutions

Bringing lessons from Ontario together with BC’s context points to a simple conclusion. Preparation is likely to be rewarded.

1) Build a clear scenario view

Institutions can benefit from developing multiyear financial and enrolment scenarios that stress test different assumptions about domestic and international students, compensation, capital needs, and possible policy changes.