campusreview. com. au
ON CAMPUS serve local needs. Larger-scale versions of the community-owned model are being examined in the Moreton Bay region and Wyong, as a means of holding universities accountable for delivering upon the expectations of their communities.
The reasons for institutions exiting or entering new campuses are undeniably complex and often particular to individual circumstances. However, the ability of an institution to viably service the needs and expectations of the local community, and the alignment of such activities with its core strategy, will be a key consideration.
The recent spate of both university and vocational campuses opening, closing and changing hands suggest the difficulty of achieving said alignment. Within Australia, there exist a number of outer-urban and regional areas that are potentially underserviced by universities, or are facing the prospect of campus closures. These areas would be prime candidates for new models of education and training delivery that include an element of face-to-face contact and the on-campus student experience.
In some cases, success would require a renewal of the relationship with the local institution, and the refreshing of governance and engagement to reprioritise the needs of the local community. In other cases, a different institution altogether may be a better fit.
In both cases, community-owned tertiary education campuses may be a popular choice, for local accountability and viability at modest scale – but for other reasons as well.
First, with the community-owned model, the set up costs for participating institutions are minimised, hence the commercial risks are worn primarily by the community, which is best placed and more motivated to manage them. This alignment between risks and ownership – and the minimal capital investment by university partners – could make this an increasingly popular approach.
Second, under community-owned models there is the potential for far higher rates of asset use, compared with traditional university satellite campuses. No one tertiary institution has either exclusive rights or sole responsibility. This creates the potential for much greater year-round use of rooms, theatres, libraries, cafeterias, and sporting and recreational facilities. This reduces the operating costs for any individual user, improves the student experience, and enhances local amenities. Setting up these community-owned facilities isn’ t necessarily simple. There are legislative, cultural and other barriers to the success of such models, but the quality of the higher education experience and the contributions a tertiary campus makes to a local economy are too important to be subject to the constraints of the past.
The disparate lessons learnt from the communities at the forefront of this trend provide the foundations for local government, regional bodies and community groups to be empowered to play a greater role in shaping future tertiary education provision in their locales. ■
Jonathan Chew is a principal at ACIL Allen Consulting. Dr Doug Fraser is the university project manager for the Moreton Bay Regional Council.
25