Time to rethink how Alberta funds post-secondary education

Alberta says it wants to make universities more “competitive,” but judging by this new funding report, it sounds like the province just signed them up for a diet plan with no food.

The recently released report by the Expert Panel on Post‑Secondary Institution Funding and Alberta’s Competitiveness offers a straightforward critique of how the province currently funds its universities and colleges. The panel makes it clear that the funding model is outdated and misaligned with Alberta’s ambitions for economic growth and global competitiveness. This is a necessary wake-up call for all stakeholders in the post-secondary system.

The panel’s mandate was to examine how provincial funding supports public and independent academic institutions, compare funding models across Canada and internationally, and assess Alberta’s global position in higher education. What stands out is the panel’s finding that the current funding model relies heavily on historical allocations rather than enrolment trends, program costs, or performance measures.

This matters. Alberta’s economy faces rapid change, thanks to technological shifts, climate imperatives, and demographic growth. The province needs a post-secondary system that produces graduates and research that align with those trends. Student demand across the province is projected to increase by about 21 per cent by 2033-34 — roughly 43,000 additional full-load equivalent students province-wide. If funding does not scale accordingly, institutions will struggle to maintain quality while meeting rising enrolment.

The proposed new funding framework addresses three components: enrolment-based funding, performance-based funding, and base funding for essential operations. The logic is sound. Enrolment-based funding allows access to grow. Performance-based funding incentivizes teaching excellence, student outcomes, and research impact. Base funding covers infrastructure, student supports, and operations that do not vary with enrolment. Without such a balance, the system risks underfunding growth or ignoring quality.

Of course, reform is not just about money. The panel takes aim at the regulatory and administrative burdens borne by institutions. It argues that Alberta’s post-secondary system is among the most heavily regulated in Canada. It recommends reducing redundant reporting requirements, giving institutions greater autonomy in revenue generation, and streamlining program approval in response to market demand. These changes could reduce overhead and free resources for teaching, research, and student support.

However, the report raises significant concerns, especially around tuition policy. One of the panel’s recommendations is to replace the current two per cent cap on domestic tuition increases with a model that guarantees tuition rates for each entering cohort while allowing some flexibility for new cohorts. The intention is to offer predictability for students while ensuring institutions have the flexibility to respond to cost pressures or program demand. But there is a practical risk. Without robust oversight, this could shift more cost burden onto students and deepen affordability issues.

Furthermore, some critics argue the panel’s recommendations reflect a narrow vision of post-secondary education. They charge that the emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), market-demand programs, and performance metrics sidelines liberal arts, critical thinking, and academic inquiry for their own sake. That critique should not be dismissed lightly. A strong post-secondary system must balance applied training with broader intellectual development.

Given these realities, what should Alberta do next? First, the provincial government must commit to the transitional funding required. The panel notes that implementing the new model will require additional funding from the government and other sources to manage enrolment growth and cost pressures. Reform cannot be a cosmetic re-labelling of existing budgets. Without meaningful investment, institutions will face cuts or program reductions that undermine access and quality.

Second, a student-centred approach must guide tuition reforms. Predictability is a worthy goal, but not at the expense of affordability. The government should pair any shift in tuition policy with enhanced non-repayable grants rather than increased debt-based loans. The panel makes this recommendation explicitly. Too often, students bear the risks of institutional under-funding.

Third, the government should preserve and promote academic diversity. The new model should not privilege narrow economic metrics alone. Institutions must retain the freedom to explore, teach, and research across disciplines — from engineering to philosophy — because societies depend on both innovation and critical reflection. The panel’s attention to performance metrics is justified, yet policymakers should resist the temptation to equate measurable output solely with value.

Fourth, the regulatory reform agenda needs transparent engagement. Reducing administrative burden and streamlining program approval are sensible. The challenge lies in balancing institutional autonomy with accountability. Government must engage with faculty, students, and community stakeholders to ensure reforms do not compromise academic governance or institutional integrity.

Finally, the transition timeline matters. The panel recommends phasing in the new funding model over five years. This is prudent; abrupt changes would destabilize institutions and students. The government should use this period to monitor impacts, adjust mechanisms, and ensure the system remains responsive.

In sum, the report from the Expert Panel presents a comprehensive blueprint to modernize how Alberta funds post-secondary education. It identifies critical misalignments with current realities in enrolment growth, cost structures, and regulatory burdens. It proposes a coherent funding model that aligns with both access and excellence. The risks lie in implementation: funding shortfalls, tuition pressures, narrowing of academic mission, or rushed reform.

For Alberta’s sake, all parties — government, institutions, students, and the public — should view this as an opportunity. A chance to build a post‐secondary system that is accessible, high-performing, and capable of meeting the province’s economic and social ambitions. Moreover, the province should also ensure that change does not sacrifice the broader purposes of higher education: cultivating informed citizens, fostering cultural life, and underpinning democratic societies.

If Alberta acts smartly, this moment can become a turning point for the sector. If it acts recklessly, the province risks a drift toward under-funded growth, rising tuition, and a narrowing academic mission. The stakes are clear: the future of Alberta’s workforce, innovation economy, and civic life depend on how this reform is managed.