Memorandum submitted by UNISON
BACKGROUND
UNISON is the largest education union in the
UK with over 300,000 members across the sector. Of these around
50,000 work in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), representing
all grades of staff from manual staff to senior managers. UNISON
has a keen interest in realising the potential of the HE system
and, within that, the potential of all its' workforce. We want
a high performing workforce that will maximise learner attainment.
The breadth and nature of the sector is often
mis-understood—for instance some of the questions suggested
as part of this inquiry refer only to "Universities",
yet the HE sector is wider than this and includes for instance
academies of art and music. The cultural differences across the
sector are also often too easily generalised. There are undoubtedly
differences between the old and new universities—however
with in these and within the other sub groups (the Russell Group,
the 94 Group etc) institutions have differences that affect both
the experiences of students and staff.
Fewer than half the staff in universities are
academics (around 45%) yet this is not obvious from general public
debate, nor indeed from national statistics. Until 2003 the Higher
Education Statistics Agency (HESA) only kept workforce data relating
to academics and even now define support staff in the negative
as "non-academic staff". Similarly, one of the main
official measurements used in the sector: student-staff ratios,
measures only the numbers of academics when referring to staff.
This leads to perverse decisions when institutions are forced
to re-structure. When employers have to adjust staffing it is
more often than not support staff that are adversely affected,
as HEIs seek to protect their student-staff ratios, meaning that
junior academics end up being asked to take on administrative
work and bureaucracy, this impacts on the work they should be
doing and could be better done by professional administrative
staff.
Of course fundamentally students go to HEIs
to get an education and the academic role is key. However to deny
the existence of others who also make the student experience vital
(see examples below) would be a serious error. The Government
states (most of the time) that HE is not in the public sector,
but clearly it does not sit in the private sector either. This
ambivalence allows some institutions to trundle along, on one
hand missing out on government forced (and sometimes negotiated)
workforce reform, whilst on the other protected from market forces.
It is interesting to compare these to the changes in the re-profiling
of the workforce across the NHS or more relevantly re-structuring
in schools. Those who would argue that all is fine and should
be left alone seek to create an artificial debate, as between
academics preserving the purity of universities as intellectual
bastions that stand outside normal realities and "managers"
who are portrayed as bureaucrats trying to drive HEIs into the
arms of the market. We recognise from our experience across the
public, private and voluntary sectors that sometimes it is necessary
to introduce measures to adapt and survive. It is how such change
is arrived at and how involved both the workforce and students
are in the process that dictates as to how successful changes
are.
One question this inquiry does not really ask
is about the leadership in the sector and whether it is up to
the job. Our experience is that historical "Buggins turn"
promotion based on academic reputation rather than management
skills has sometimes caused problems within HEIs. In a 21st century
competitive global economy those in charge need to be skilled
and competent managers. The increased movement of international
students, with access to the web and information on Institutions,
means that HEIs have to pitch themselves accordingly. This calls
for savvy and knowledgeable leaders. This obviously does not rule
out academics as senior managers, but nor does it mean they automatically
should be the leaders. What it does mean is that senior managers
need good management skills, structured support and continued
professional development and training to lead HEIs. The role of
the Leadership Foundation is crucial in this. Good management
is not just about the top, it is engendered throughout an organisation,
it is inclusive and engages managers at all levels of an institution.
The Leadership Foundation has made a good start but its focus
currently is at the top and needs to be extended to engage lower
level managers.
THE ROLE
OF UNIVERSITIES
OVER THE
5-10 YEARS
AND WHAT
STUDENTS WANT
What students want from HEIs will vary depending
on their age, their life experience and their reason for choosing
their particular institution. For example the views of those that
are studying for a chosen vocation will differ from those studying
to get a qualification in a subject that interests them, but have
not yet decided on a career. However we can surmise that all want
a high quality education and will want it in a "safe"
and supportive environment without prejudice or discrimination.
They may also have more vocational requirements and be seeking
employability skills and career advice. Some international students
may want English language support and those with disabilities
will require support mechanisms to assist them. Not all of these
are the remit of academics but are vital to students achieving
their potential.
In particular support staff provide students
with the necessary environmental context to feel able to concentrate
on their learning. For example cleaners in Sheffield Hallam are
being trained in counseling as often they can be the first port
of call for new and lonely students as they need to go into student
dwellings to clean them. In other institutions our security guards
make sure that students are protected from outsiders who would
seek to steal or abuse them and often are called to make sure
they are safe after they have overdone things.
WHAT DO
EMPLOYERS/SOCIETY
WANT FROM
GRADUATES?
With an increased supply of graduates employers
need not just an educated workforce they want well rounded human
beings as well. This is more than just producing automatons that
pass exams. It involves the necessary maturing of our future workforce
leaders appropriate for a high skills economy. We also believe
that there is a need to widen participation, however there is
a need to ensure that resources are in place to deliver this;
the academics to lead the learning and research and support staff
that will make it happen by supporting vital services such as
IT and library. This needs significant investment to ensure that
hardware, books and web based services are up to date to allow
students to work at the forefront of technology. Of course we
should aim for a stable, internationally competitive, HE sector,
built on significant targeted government funding.
STUDENT FUNDING
It is ridiculous to suggest lifting the cap
on fees at such an early stage when the full impact of the current
system has not worked through nor been subject to a review. Currently
student intake figures have been distorted by the comparatively
recent introduction of the new policy. Our current view is that
the present policy will dissuade students from pursuing HE, and
those that do choose to go will be saddled with massive debts
which will add to the debt culture in society in general.
Lifting of the cap will extend the divisions
and differences between the wealthy and poorer institutions. In
the current situation most universities are charging the maximum
for most courses because to charge less than a competitor might
be read to indicate that your degree is worth less than theirs.
If the cap is lifted some institutions will raise their fees:
no doubt Oxbridge, the Russell Group and others with reputations
in particular areas. However other Institutions will have to weigh
up the balance between increasing fees and causing a reduction
in recruitment. This could cause a multi-tiered system in HE which
if picked up by the employers could lead to the demise of some
universities in the lower tier(s) as employers will prefer candidates
from the more expensive institutions. Fewer university places
will result in a problem for the government's stated aim of increasing
participation in HE. In addition it would add to the already increasing
debt burden in society and would almost certainly not increase
student recruitment from the lower income families. Part-time
students either paying their own way or being sponsored by employers
would most probably have to think twice about embarking on a course
and consider whether it was likely to be value for money in their
lifetime which may well discourage older people from re-training.
Changing demographics will also mean fewer school leavers; increasing
dependence on mature and international students.
RESEARCH
At the time of submitting this paper we are
working through the proposed changes to the Government's reforms
on measuring and funding research. On the one hand we accept that
this should make the process less bureaucratic, however the proposals
on metrics with its focus on inputs raises some issues and we
share the concerns of those who suggest this could increase the
disparity between rich and poor departments.
We believe that an internationally-competitive
research capacity is vital and full support increases in the EU
budget to greatly improve the quantity and quality of research
via the 7th EU framework for research and technological development.
We would also support moves to ensure greater
cross border quality, although the current proposals do not seem
to be refined enough and may lead to tenuous cross border projects
that are based on academic/institution links rather than strategic
well planned partnerships . Unfortunately, as ever support staff
have been forgotten. The 6th programme did not take into account
the need for proper administration and technical support. Consequently
researchers were busy doing administrative functions rather than
concentrating on research—this wasted their time and resources
and limited opportunities for support staff. The outline 7th programme
followed this trend, however our sister union HK-STAT (Denmark)
worked with Britta Thomsen MEP to submit amendments with a view
to building in administrative needs. Unfortunately these amendments
were not agreed even though we alerted UK MEPS on the relevant
committee of the importance of this. We are building an EU network
of support staff unions to ensure that future EU policy takes
account of this and will be targeting the 8th programme.
HE IN THE
FE SECTOR
Expanding the role of HE in the FE sector is
welcome as foundation degrees provide opportunities for young
people who might not otherwise have them. It should also provide
them with gateways to honours degrees. However we have concerns
around resources available to FE colleges. Particularly in libraries,
where there are issues over stock and staffing and restricted
opening hours. We have had reports that some FE colleges currently
have access to their local HE institution library for students
on courses that are validated by them and concerns have been expressed
that if colleges validate their own degrees these might not be
withdrawn. Our FE members also report concerns around staff training
and added demands.
HE STRUCTURES
Of course the Government has a role in shaping
the sector. It is a nonsense to pretend that this is a normal
market. A purely free market that ran only courses that make a
profit would see a range of science courses decline and die. The
future of our long term technological base is a major factor in
our long term international economic competitiveness. The Government
should set out long term strategies for ensuring the economic
future of the country. The Government has to have a role in planning
steering and shaping the structure of the sector. A pure free
market would be disaster.
December 2006
| 
