Hi everyone,
Tiffany here.
A quick reminder that Focus Friday is happening today, February 6th, from 12:30-1:30pm Eastern.
Over the past few Focus Friday sessions, we’ve spent a lot of time sitting with the pressures facing postsecondary institutions: financial constraint, political intervention, governance challenges, and the sense that many institutions are being asked to change faster than ever before. Today, we want to shift the lens slightly.
Rather than focusing only on constraint, this session asks a different question: what does institutional renewal actually look like in practice? AND how do leaders create the conditions for it?
To explore that, I’m joined by Jenn Stephenson and Bill Nelson, whose recent work has brought Queen’s University Faculty of Arts and Science into a modular degree model and focused on institutional rejuvenation. Through their writing and on-the-ground experience, Jenn and Bill have been examining how institutions move from fatigue and reactivity toward renewal, clarity, and purpose, even in difficult moments.
Our conversation today will dig into what rejuvenation really means for colleges and universities right now, how leaders can foster momentum when resources are tight, and what it takes to sustain people and institutions over the long term. This isn’t about quick fixes or silver bullets, but about leadership, culture, and intentional change.
As always, this will be a discussion-oriented session, with plenty of space for questions, reflections, and shared experiences from the group.
If you haven’t registered yet, you can still join us here.
Looking forward to seeing many of you soon.
Looking Back: Provincial Politics and Higher Education (January 23)
The last Focus Friday session centered on how provincial politics, governance pressures, and fiscal constraints are reshaping Canadian postsecondary education, with a particular focus on how institutions are being forced, often externally, to confront long-deferred trade-offs. Alex Usher joined me for a conversation on provincial politics and PSEs.
Context and Framing
The conversation built directly on a community chat held two weeks earlier, where participants overwhelmingly raised concerns about provincial government intervention, funding instability, and increasing political direction over institutional decisions. In response, this session focused on unpacking how provincial politics are influencing governance, funding, and institutional autonomy across Canada.
Government Intervention and “Cakism”
A key theme was the idea of “cakism” or the tendency of governments to expect mutually incompatible outcomes (for example: lower public funding alongside higher institutional performance and service levels). The discussion highlighted how governments have increasingly downloaded difficult trade-offs onto institutions rather than making explicit political choices themselves.
International student enrolment was cited as a prime example: governments benefited from institutions’ reliance on international tuition revenue for years, avoiding hard funding decisions, until abrupt policy changes exposed the fragility of that model.
Universities as Utilities
Participants explored the idea that postsecondary institutions are increasingly treated like public utilities: expected to function continuously, predictably, and without disruption. As participation rates have grown, universities and colleges are no longer viewed as elite or “special,” but as essential infrastructure. This shift has led to heightened government scrutiny, intolerance for service disruption, and greater willingness to intervene in governance and operations.
Program Reviews, Closures, and Data
The conversation examined provincial initiatives such as program reviews, funding formula changes, and labour-market-aligned credential rules. While these interventions force institutions to confront sustainability questions, concerns were raised about:
- Poor or inconsistent data
- Simplistic assumptions about program “winners” and “losers”
- The political and cultural difficulty of program closures
There was broad agreement that institutions should routinely assess program sustainability, but doing so only during crises undermines trust and legitimacy.
Governance and Board Dynamics
Participants discussed how boards are becoming more risk-averse and more involved in operational decisions, driven by fears of financial collapse, reputational damage, or political fallout. While this trend is partly linked to government influence, it was also framed as a sector-wide response to instability and uncertainty rather than a single political cause.
Leadership Capacity and Constraints
A recurring question was whether current institutional leadership structures are equipped to manage large-scale transformation. The conversation noted that:
- Universities have limited cost-cutting levers compared to other sectors
- Highly specialized labour limits flexibility (for example: if a Shakespeare historian gets laid off after more than 10 years of educating and specializing, what do they do?)
- Leadership norms evolved during decades when financial problems could be solved through revenue growth, not contraction.
This shift back to cost-side decision-making represents a major cultural and managerial adjustment.
Cuts, Community Impact, and Public Trust
Participants raised concerns about the consequences of cutting “non-core” activities such as athletics, community programming, and student services. While such cuts may satisfy short-term fiscal or political pressures, they risk eroding community relationships, institutional goodwill, and long-term support.
Mergers, Collaboration, and System Design
The discussion challenged assumptions that mergers are an easy cost-saving solution, noting that most mergers increase complexity and costs unless accompanied by deep structural change. However, participants expressed interest in:
- Greater inter-institutional collaboration
- Shared services and collective learning
- Rethinking rigid distinctions between universities and colleges
The idea of designing institutions around regional skill needs, rather than legacy institutional forms, emerged as a provocative alternative.
Looking Ahead
The session concluded by emphasizing that the sector is entering a period where explicit trade-offs are unavoidable. Governments, boards, and institutional leaders will need to be more transparent about choices, constraints, and priorities.
