Memorandum submitted by the University
and College Union (UCU)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purposes of higher education
1. While recognising the financial benefits
of higher education to the UK economy, UCU believes that the purposes
of higher education as laid down by the Robbins report and the
subsequent re-expression of these values in the Dearing report
(1997) remain valid today. Although the instrumental, economic
value of higher education was stressed by Dearing, the report
also highlighted the intrinsic value of knowledge and the wider
social, cultural and democratic purposes of a learning society.
2. In our view, the instrumental purposes
outlined in the Dearing report ("to serve the needs of an
adaptable, sustainable, knowledge-based economy at local, regional
and national levels" and ensuring that students are "well-equipped
for work") are becoming the sole drivers of government policy.
Fees and funding
3. The Government would suggest that higher
education is a means to improving social cohesion and equality
of opportunity, as well as a means to improving the UK's economic
performance.
4. It is important the Government recognises
that continued investment in the sector is required if it is to
operate as an engine of economic growth and as a contributor to
social justice.
5. Continued investment is needed in widening
participation activities in higher educationas well as
initiatives in schools and FE collegesand in supporting
"non-traditional" students once they are at a university
or college of HE.
6. There is a problem that potential "widening
participation" students are the ones most likely to be discouraged
from entering higher education because of its cost.
7. The Government wants greater selectivity
in research funding in the hope that developing an elite group
of world-class institutions will have good knock-on effects for
the economy. The impact of that policy is to concentrate research
funds in an increasingly small number of institutions and to jeopardise
for many staff and students the opportunity to work and study
in a research-active environment.
Quality of teaching and learning
8. There is a consensus that teaching in
higher education is currently under-funded. While the Government
has been prepared to make some additional investment in relation
to research this has not been the case with respect to teaching.
9. We are extremely concerned about the
growth of the student:staff ratio. The increasing age profile
of academic staff means that a growing number of staff will be
retiring over the next 10 years.
10. The expansion in student numbers, the
growing pressures on staff to publish and bring in research income,
burgeoning administrative demands, and the increasing casualisation
of the workforce have all led to reduction in students' contact
time with their lecturers.
11. The amount of academic staff time spent
on bureaucratic monitoring and administration must be limited
in order that proper attention can be given to teaching and related
activities such as the developments in pedagogy, programme and
approaches to learning and assessment.
Research and scholarship
12. There have been major increases in public
spending on recurrent funding for research compared to teaching.
13. The result of withdrawal of research
funding from departments not performing sufficiently highly in
the Research Assessment Exercise, may increasingly lead to the
closure of departments, particularly ones which are expensive
to run.
14. UCU also believes that the current DfES
proposals for a metrics based system for assessing research are
flawedfor example, 81% of UCU members in a recent poll
said they are opposed to the government's plans. We call on the
DfES and the funding councils to pull back from their metrics
proposals and examine the full range of options for a post-RAE
world.
Balance between institutional autonomy and government
intervention
15. The protection of higher education institutions
from government interference is crucial to the protection of academic
freedom. At the same time, as the provider of public funds to
higher education, government has both a right and a responsibility
to satisfy itself that those funds are used effectively.
16. We believe that the existing legislative
framework is now due for review. We would argue for a strengthening
of HEFCE's independence by giving it specific duties to represent
the views of higher education institutions through published advice,
and also by restricting the secretary of state's control over
the appointment of the council's Board and its chairman.
17. In parallel to a review of HEFCE's statutory
basis, we also believe that the legal protection of academic freedom
should be examined as has been the case in Scotland.
18. We believe that academic freedom should
be protected in law and that alleged contraventions should be
investigated and adjudicated by a body similar to the OIA.
19. With regard to governance, UCU believes
that there should be an independent, public review of the composition
and appointment of university councils and governing bodies.
UCU
20. The University and College Union (UCU)
represents nearly 120,000 further and higher education lecturers,
managers, researchers and many academic-related staff such as
librarians, administrators and computing professionals across
the UK. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the select committee
inquiry into the future sustainability of the higher education
sector.
21. Given the broad-ranging nature of the
inquiry it has not been possible to respond to all the questions.
Instead, we have decided to focus on what our members perceive
to be the key issues: fees and funding, the quality of teaching
and research and the balance between institutional autonomy and
government intervention. Before addressing these issues, we would
like to make some brief comments on the purposes of higher education.
Purposes of higher education
22. The future of higher education white
paper, 2003: "The skills, creativity, and research developed
through higher education are a major factor in our success in
creating jobs and in our prosperity. Universities and colleges
play a vital role in expanding opportunity and promoting social
justice. The benefits of higher education for individuals are
far-reaching."[137]
23. The HE sector is of huge economic importance
to the UK: Higher education institutions are worth £45 billion
to the UK economy according to a report published by the vice-chancellors'
organisation, Universities UK.
24. The higher education sector is now a
larger contributor to the UK economy than the UK pharmaceutical
industry and aircraft industry and only slightly smaller than
UK legal activities and auxiliary financial services.
25. While recognising the financial benefits
of higher education to the UK economy, UCU believes that the purposes
of higher education as laid down by the Robbins report and the
subsequent re-expression of these values in the Dearing report
(1997) remain valid today. Although the instrumental, economic
value of higher education was stressed by Dearing, the report
also highlighted the intrinsic value of knowledge and the wider
social, cultural and democratic purposes of a learning society.
26. Dearing, therefore, recommended a number
of wider purposes for higher education, such as the ability "to
inspire and enable individuals to develop their capabilities to
the highest potential levels throughout life" and enabling
students to "grow intellectually" and "to contribute
effectively to society and achieve personal fulfillment".
The report also stressed the intrinsic value of learning and the
major role played by higher education "in shaping a democratic,
civilised, inclusive society".[138]
27. In our view, the instrumental purposes
outlined in the Dearing report ("to serve the needs of an
adaptable, sustainable, knowledge-based economy at local, regional
and national levels" and ensuring that students are "well-equipped
for work") are becoming the sole drivers of government policy.[139]
This is both unfortunate and regrettable.
28. This is intimately connected to the
increasing marketisation of higher education represented by recent
initiatives such as deferred fees, the commercialisation of research
funding and the plethora of performance targets. Moreover, the
government's agenda to develop and expand "provision which
is fully or partly funded and led by employers" will further
narrow the purposes of higher education.
29. We believe that there are hidden costs
in embracing a narrowly instrumental employer-led approach to
higher education. In particular, we are concerned about the detrimental
effects on academic standards and academic freedom, including
pressures to suppress "unwelcome" research results and
to cut corners in relation to student assessment. UCU reaffirms
its commitment to higher education as an essential public good.
Fees and funding
30. The Government would suggest that higher
education is a means to improving social cohesion and equality
of opportunity, as well as a means to improving the UK's economic
performance.
31. We consider that it is good for higher
education to have these roles, provided they are seen in the context
of universities and colleges as places of teaching and research,
scholarship and discovery of the widest kinds, and provided there
is sufficient investment to make these goals successful and sustainable.
32. It is clear that higher education is
a good investment. For every 100 jobs within higher education
institutions, a further 99 FTE jobs are generated through knock-on
effects. For every £1million of HEI output, a further £1.52
million of output is generated in other sectors of the economy.[140]
33. It is important the Government recognises
that continued investment in the sector is required if it is to
operate as an engine of economic growth and as a site for the
promotion and generation of social justice.
34. Continued investment is needed in widening
participation activities in higher educationas well as
initiatives in schools and FE collegesand in supporting
"non-traditional" students once they are at a university
or college of HE. We welcome the links between further and higher
education through, for example, Lifelong Learning Networks.
35. It is important to recognise that sometimes
the Government's economic and social goals operate in tension.
36. The Government wants greater selectivity
in research funding in the hope that developing an elite group
of world-class institutions will have positive consequences for
the economy. The impact of that policy is to concentrate research
funds in an increasingly small number of institutions.
37. Between 1997-98 and 2005-06, the allocation
of recurrent funding for research (mainly under the QR stream)
generally became more concentrated in the hands of a small number
of HEIs. In England, the research funding share for the highest
10% of research-earning HEIs rose from 56% to 59%; in Wales the
highest research earner, Cardiff University, incrased its share
of total funding from 39% to 57%; in Scotland, the funding share
of the highest 10% of research-earning HEIs rose from 48% to 49%.
Data for Northern Ireland's two research universitiesQueen's
University of Belfast and University of Ulsterin 2005-06
were unavailable at the time of writing. In all three counctries,
the highest 50% of research earners accounted for almost 100%
of allocated research funds.
38. Withdrawal of research funding leads
to departmental closures and withdrawal of provision hits "non-traditional"
students hardest, ie the students whose background is working
class and includes certain black and minority ethnic groups.There
has been a real lack of progress in increasing the proportion
of young full-time undergraduates from socio-economic groups four
to seven.
39. Recent research indicates that the student
groups with the lowest incomes include those who live at home
with their parents; come from a minority ethnic group; come from
the lowest social classes; and come from a family where no one
else has studied at university. Those most likely to live with
their parents include minority ethnic students and students from
the lowest social classes. In addition, students living at home
were more likely to work during the academic year.[141]
40. Again, the Government wants a world-class
university system. That requires investment. The means of investment
chosen by the Government in the UK (with the exception of Scotland)
is variable tuition fees payable in the first instance by means
of subsidised loans and repayable by graduates once their income
reaches a certain level. Under £3,000 variable fees, average
graduate debt levels are likely to be in the region of £15,000.[142]
41. Increased funding is also needed to
support widening participation activities in schools, FE colleges
and HEIs. There is a problem that potential "widening participation"
students are the ones most likely to be discouraged from entering
higher education because of its cost.[143]
This may help explain why, in the UK, since 2002-03, the proportion
of students from working-class backgrounds in the UK has fallen
slightly, from 29.2% to 28.7%. About 15,000 fewer full-time undergraduates
started university in the UK in 2006 compared with the previous
year, it remains to be seen whether this fall disproportionately
includes non-traditional students.[144]
Recommendations
42. That the proportion of UK public expenditure
on higher education is increased to the OECD average, of 1.1%
of GDP.
43. That long-term investment in enabling
knowledge transfer is needed; we consider that England's Higher
Education Innovation Fund is an important step towards this aim.
We recommend that the majority of such funding continues to be
allocated on a formula basis.
44. That there is a review of the use of
widening participation funding, to identify best practice in WP
activities and to appraise priorities in the use of WP funding
between widening access, improving retention and other activities
45. That tuition fees are abolished, with
additional funding coming from the Government and employers.
The quality of teaching and learning
FUNDING
46. There is a consensus that teaching in
higher education is currently under-funded. While the Government
has been prepared to make some additional investment in relation
to research this has not been the case with respect to teaching.
This impacts particularly on institutions with large numbers of
less academically prepared students, and students studying part-time,
where teaching costs will be high.
47. Over the past three decades, the student:staff
ratio in UK higher education has also increased from 9 students
to 1 teacher, to 19 students to 1 teacher. This is a rise of more
than 100%. Over the same period, the pupil:teacher ratio across
all UK schools has fallen from 19 pupils to 1 teacher, to 18 pupils
to 1 teacher. Since 2000-01 the higher education SSR has been
higher than the schools PTR. Over a five-year period to 2003,
OECD data show the student:teaching staff ratio in UK higher education
fluctuating at around 18:1. This was consistently higher than
the mean ratio for OECD countries, of 15:1, and was also considerably
higher over that period than for the USA, Germany and Japan.
48. We are extremely concerned about the
growth of the student:staff ratio. The increasing age profile
of academic staff means that a growing number of staff will be
retiring over the next 10 years. More staff will be needed to
meet the Government's aim of 50% of young people participating
in higher education by 2010, at a time when the young adult age
cohort in the population is increasing. Ever-increasing dependence
on casualised staff makes no sense in terms of quality for students,
equality for staff or smooth management.
49. The expansion in student numbers, the
growing pressures on staff to publish and bring in research income,
burgeoning administrative demands, and the increasing casualisation
of the workforce have all led to reduction in students' contact
time with their lecturers. For example, lecturers and teachers
on average work longer hours or unpaid overtime than most other
occupations and suffer higher levels of psychological distress
than other occupational groups, including doctors, managers and
professional staff.[145]
All of these workload pressures have led to a reduction in students'
contact time with their lecturers.
50. Pressure from performance indicators
such as degree classifications and student retention rates may
also be leading to compromises over academic standards. For example,
a number of surveys point to unacceptable pressures on academic
staff to award higher grades and to avoid failing students for
primarily financial or PR reasons.[146]
Similarly, during the 2006 pay dispute in higher education, a
large number of universities were willing to by-pass the usual
quality assurance provisions. Examples included allowing students
to graduate without completing the full qualification, the abandonment
of second-marking procedures and the use of non-specialists to
set exam papers and mark scripts.[147]
Quality assurance provisions have become more and more demanding
in recent years and to be told that when it became inconvenient
to the employer, the employer would simply abandon them, UCU members
found insulting. Professional and statutory bodies such as the
Law Society also expressed their concerns about the impact on
UK degree standards.[148]
51. Overall, we believe that financial pressures
on staff and institutions are leading to a reduction in the quality
of the student learning experience and assessment.
52. New provision at all levelsprogramme,
course and moduleshould be predicated on appropriate attention
to the significance of student:staff ratios. This should feature
as an indicator of the quality of provision and the rigour of
assessment in validation procedures. The amount of academic staff
time being taken on bureaucratic monitoring with little evidence
of its contribution to the quality of service, needs to be limited
and reduced further to allow the more productive use of the time
available for learning, teaching and assessment.
53. In addition, a growing number of undergraduates
are being forced to take paid employment during term-time. Recent
research shows that high levels of term-time working can have
a negative impact on student involvement in classes and attainment.
We are already experiencing the emergence of a "two-tier"
student experiencewith major implications for the government's
social inclusion agenda.[149]
54. UCU believes that students deserve a
high quality learning environment irrespective of their background
or their course of study.
Recommendations:
55. That income generated by student contribution
is additional and is not used to replace public funds.
56. That the costs of offering financial
support to poorer students are shared by the sector as a whole,
via the introduction of a national bursary system.
57. That there is a restoration of proper
maintenance grants to prevent a "two-tier" student experience.
58. That all part-time students should be
given pro-rata access to the full range of grants and bursaries
and the ability to defer paying fees.
59. That funding is made available to safeguard
and enhance teaching capacity and quality on an equitable basis
at institutions across the sector.
60. That the additional costs of widening
participation in relation to student retention and student success
are met through additional funding.
61. That validation and auditing procedures
should pay specific attention to staff student ratios as an indicator
of quality assurance.
62. That caps on academic staff time required
to undertake adminstrative work should be applied by employing
institutions.
63. UCU believes that additional resources
must be directed towards improving the student experience, and
supporting staff:
64. That additional staff are employed to
bring about reduction of the SSR in the UK to the level of the
OECD country mean over the coming decade.
65. That hourly-paid teaching posts are
converted into fractional contracts.
66. That there is an expansion of continuing
professional development for all academic and academic-related
staff.[150]
Research and scholarship
67. Compared to teaching, there have been
major increases in public spending on recurrent funding for research.
Between 1997-8 and 2006-7, there was an increase of 91% in recurrent
research funding for higher education institutions in England,
57% in Wales and 115% in Scotland. The great majority of recurrent
funding for research in UK higher education is allocated on the
basis of departments' results in the Research Assessment Exercise
(RAE).
68. The result of withdrawal of research
funding from departments not performing sufficiently highly in
the Research Assessment Exercise, may increasingly lead to the
closure of departments, particularly ones which are expensive
to run (of course, change in student demand is also a contributory
factor). This in turn reduces the number of places where particular
subjects, such as chemistry and physics, are provided.
69. We welcome the introduction of funding
streams additional to quality-related funding which are intended
to stimulate research potential, but we believe that research
funding is already too concentrated and any additional selectivity
risks undermining the intellectual culture across the national
university system as research becomes unduly concentrated in very
few institutions. We do not accept that high numbers of students
should study in universities that are not or barely research-active.
70. UCU also believes that the current DfES
proposals for a metrics based system for assessing research are
flawedfor example, 81% of UCU members in a recent poll
said they are opposed to the Government's plans.
71. A number of different concerns were
raised by members, of which the following were the most frequent:
72. Income-based metrics reflect a "big
science" model of research, ignoring huge swathes of HE subjects
and disciplines, including desk-based scientific research in areas
like mathematics.
73. There are problems in linking all Quality-Related
(QR) research funding to an ability to win grants from the big
funders. Ultimately this system could have a negative impact on
academic freedom, especially the ability to finance or publish
research in unorthodox or controversial fields.
74. Income-based metrics could result in
further "short-termism" in HE research, making it more
difficult for universities to move to greater use of permanent
contracts and/or to avoid redundancies in the future.[151]
75. UCU calls on the DfES and the funding
councils to pull back from their metrics proposals and examine
the full range of options for a post-RAE world.
76. Private and commercial sources of funding
make up a growing proportion of the research income of UK HEIs.
We are concerned about the ways in which the research agenda can
be distorted by an excessive reliance on commercial funding. For
example, a New Economics Foundation report has shown how oil and
gas industry funding of university geology departments and research
centres can help skew research priorities, ie the bulk of research
funding (both public and private) continues to go on developing
new ways of extracting fossil fuels rather than on renewables.[152]
77. Moreover, UCU has major concerns about
the detrimental impact of commercial funding on the freedom to
publish. For example, a survey carried out by AUT and Prospect,
published in March 2005 found that more than 10% of scientists
have been asked by their commercial backer to tailor their research
conclusions to meet the sponsor's requirements.[153]
More needs to be done to strengthen the ethical and accountability
structures attached to commercial (and government) funding.
Recommendations
78. That there is a restoration of recurrent
research funding for departments rated 3a in the RAE.
79. That the Government widens the scope
of its review and the composition of its working group on the
RAEto include practitioners as well as official representatives.
80. That with regard to the commercialisation
of research, an ethical research framework should be developed
which ensures research funders can not unduly influence or cover
up uncomfortable research findings.
Balance between institutional autonomy and government
intervention
81. UCU welcomes the Committee's decision
to include in its inquiry an examination of the relationship between
government and higher education institutions. The key to this
issue is the role of the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
82. The protection of higher education institutions
from government interference is crucial to the protection of academic
freedom. At the same time, as the provider of public funds to
higher education, government has both a right and a responsibility
to satisfy itself that those funds are used effectively.
83. This is a difficult balance to strike.The
traditional solution has been to place a public body between government
and institutions to act as a "buffer" between the two.
This was the concept behind the old Universities and Grants Committee
(UGC), the historical forerunner of HEFCE.
84. However, the legislative framework for
HEFCE (principally, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992)
emphasised its role as a conduit of government policy, giving
ministers a much greater control of funding allocation, although
of course still indirectly. The functions of the funding body
as an advisor to government and the public, as a promoter of the
interests of institutions, and as a protector of their autonomy,
were downplayed.
85. In our view, the balance has swung much
too far in favour of HEFCE operating as an administrative arm
of government. Our members would view its "independence"
as largely illusory. If it does exercise independence from time
to time and resist government pressure, it certainly does not
do so publicly, or, as far as we can see, successfully.
86. We believe that the existing legislative
framework is now due for review. We would argue for a strengthening
of HEFCE's independence by giving it specific duties to represent
the views of higher education institutions through published advice,
and also by restricting the secretary of state's control over
the appointment of the council's Board and its chairman.
87. It is important for the funding council
to have the statutory strength to resist any attempts by government
to use its control of funding to shape the structure of the sector.
Planning and management of higher education should normally be
left to the funding council and the institutions.
88. Policy-directed funding should be minimised
except where there is an overriding national interest at stake.
The need to widen access to higher education is a good example
of the latter, as is the present urgent requirement to protect
strategically important and vulnerable subjects such as physics
and chemistry. The primary responsibility of government is to
provide adequate funding. It is for the funding council in close
cooperation with the institutions to allocate funds in a way which
acknowledges the diverse purposes of higher education and which
does not stifle the creative abilities of institutions to meet
those purposes in different ways.
89. On the specific issue of departments
in strategically important subjects threatened with closure, we
believe that HEFCE should be funded to support such departments
in defined circumstances. HEIs should be required to alert HEFCE
at the earliest possible stage if strategically important and
vulnerable subjects are at risk.
90. Recent research on STEM subjects by
UCU shows a decline in the period 1998-2007 of 31% in the number
of single honours chemistry courses offered in the UK, of 14%
in single honours physics courses, and of nearly 10% in single
honours maths courses. In some regions of the UK, in 2007 there
is only one provider of core science and maths subjectsa
situation which could undermine widening participation aims.
91. With regard to languages, UCU research
shows that in the decade to 2007 there has been an overall decline
of nearly 20% in the number of HEIs providing French, German or
Italian undergraduate language courses. This is making provision
more concentrated in fewer HE institutions. The government's decision
in 2004 to make languages at GCSE non-compulsory could reduce
still further the number of institutions providing courses in
these languages. Already the number of pupils taking French and
German at GCSE has dropped sharply. As with STEM provision, it
seems the number of departments providing these subjects looks
set to continue to drop.
92. A set of criteria for the allocation
of special funding to vulnerable departments should be developed
through widespread consultation with all interested parties in
the sector.
93. The criteria should include an assessment
of the impact of closure on undergraduate and postgraduate student
access regionally, nationally and internationally, as well as
on research output and on staff retention and recruitment.
94. If the concept of strategically important
subjects is to mean anything in practice then we should be prepared
to pay the cost of saving departments where institutions can demonstrate
their potential for successful survival over a reasonable period
of additional support.
95. In parallel to a review of HEFCE's statutory
basis, we also believe that the legal protection of academic freedom
should be examined.
96. The ability of institutions to conduct
teaching and research free of political interference is essential
to our democracy. Academic freedom operates both at the level
of the individual academic and as a vital component of institutional
independence.
97. In recent years, academic freedom has
been undermined by the intense pressures on staff to attract students
and research funding. More recently, government proposals on anti-terrorism
and extremism on campus have clashed with the values of academic
freedom. Whether or not one takes the view that those proposals
have crossed the line and restricted academic freedom, they have
highlighted the vulnerability of academic freedom and the absence
of any effective legislative "safety net" to afford
it ultimate protection.
98. At present, the only specific protection
of academic freedom in English law is under section 202 of the
Education Reform Act 1988.[154]
This places a duty on chartered universities "to ensure that
academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test
received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial
or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy
of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions."
The provision applies only to the pre-1992 universities. (The
Scottish Parliament included a clause on protection of academic
freedom in its 2005 Further and Higher Education Act). Some other
references to academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus
can be found in legislation, but there is no clear, overarching
protection covering all institutions.
99. Furthermore, the Government recently
removed the route to redress in relation to the limited protections
of section 202. The incorporation of the terms of section 202
into the charters and statutes of the pre-1992 universities enabled
academic staff who believed that their academic freedom had been
infringed to complain to their institution's Visitor, an individual,
often legally qualified, appointed to police the application of
the statutes impartially.
100. In the Education Act 2004 the Government
effectively abolished the Visitor's jurisdiction over staff complaints.
In the case of student complaints the Visitor was replaced by
the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education
(OIA).
101. There is now very real concern among
UCU members about academic freedom. We believe that academic freedom
should be protected in law and that alleged contraventions should
be investigated and adjudicated by a body similar to the OIA.
102. Recent changes in the governance of
higher education institutions represent a related area of concern
to UCU members. The trend over the last 15 years or so has been
towards smaller councils and governing bodies, with diminished
staff and student representation.
103. It is not clear to us that these changes
have either increased the public accountability of institutions
or improved their management. On the contrary, in our experience
lay representatives on councils and governing bodies often have
little knowledge or understanding of the distinctive values and
purposes of higher education. They rarely question the recommendations
of the vice-chancellor and senior management, who themselves become
unaccountable for the considerable executive power that they wield
in today's universities. The readiness of many councils to delegate
powers to vice-chancellors is a particularly worrying recent phenomenon.
104. It is these practices which explain
why councils and governing bodies are generally viewed by staff
as part of the top down "command and control" culture
of managerialism that has undermined and in some cases virtually
destroyed the sense of academic community and shared purpose in
many institutions.
105. It is ironic that while best practice
in business emphasises the cultivation of a feeling of ownership
and participation in decision-making among employees, in higher
education staff are increasingly excluded from any say in the
running of their universities and colleges. This disenfranchisement
contributes to the low morale of staff in the sector.
106. UCU does not deny the importance of
external representation on councils and governing bodies and of
the valuable contribution that lay members can make. However,
we do believe strongly that a more balanced mix of staff and student
representatives, senior management and external lay members is
needed in order to ensure that decisions are better informed;
that the core academic mission of the institution is given proper
weight; and that an effective check on overbearing managerial
power exists.
107. We also believe that the method of
appointment of lay members should be reviewed in order to assess
whether Nolan standards of public life, and also equalities principles,
are being followed. The role and appropriateness of the membership
of vice-chancellors and senior managers on councils and governing
bodies should also be reviewed. While the guidance produced by
the Committee of University Chairmen is welcome, it does not deal
adequately with these important areas.
Recommendations
108. That the legislative framework for
HEFCE should be reviewed with a view to strengthening its independence
from government.
109. HEIs should be required to alert HEFCE
at the earliest possible stage if strategically important and
vulnerable subjects are at risk.
110. That the Government should provide
additional funding for targeted support to departments in strategically
important areas faced with closure; the fund should be allocated
according to objective criteria developed by HEFCE following widespread
consultation with interested bodies.
111. That academic freedom should be safeguarded
in law and supported by an independent complaints procedure.
112. That an independent public review of
the composition and appointment of university councils and governing
bodies should be undertaken.
December 2006
137 DfES, p. 4. Back
138
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher
education in the learning society, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
Back
139
See the recent report by Jennifer Bone and Ian McNay (2006) Higher
education and the human good and some of the observations in the
report by the Council for Industry and Higher Education (2005)
Higher education: more than a degree. Back
140
Universities UK (2006) The economic impact of UK higher education
institutions, London: UUK, p. 7 (http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/economicimpact3.pdf) Back
141
Claire Callender and David Wilkinson (2003) 2002-03 Student Income
and Expenditure Survey: Students' Income, Expenditure and Debt
in 2002-03 and changes since 1998-99, London: DfES, research report
no. 487, section 2.3.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2 Back
142
http://www.natwest.com/global options.asp?id=GLOBAL/MEDIA/131 Back
143
CHERI and London South Bank University (2005) Survey of higher
education students' attitudes to debt and term-time working and
their impact on attainment, London: Universities UK, p. 7 (http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/termtime
work.pdf) Back
144
http://www.ucas.ac.uk/new/press/news181006.html Back
145
TUC (2006) Work Your Proper Hours Day, 21 February 2006; Gail
Kinman and Fiona Jones (2004) Working to the limit-stress and
work life balance in academic and academic-related employees in
the UK, London: AUT. Back
146
Phil Baty (2004) "Poll reveals pressure to dumb down"
Times Higher Education Supplement, 19 November 2004; Phil
Baty (2006) "Academia has sold out, 72% believe", Times
Higher Education Supplement, 27 November 2006. Back
147
Phil Bary (2006) "Liverpool slated as number of firsts soars",
Times Higher Education Supplement, 22 September 2006. Back
148
Anushka Asthana (2006) "Universities plan easier degrees
to beat strike", The Observer, 30 April 2006. Back
149
Claire Callender et al (2005) Survey of higher education students'
attitudes to debt and term-time working and their impact on attainment,
a report to Universities UK and HEFCE by the Centre for Higher
Education Research and Information (CHERI) and London South Bank
University. Back
150
It is critical that such funding is explicitly earmarked for
practitioners' professional development, as experience shows that
when funding pressures are acute, budgets for CPD are not safeguarded
at the faculty/departmental level, where they are most needed
and can most effectively be deployed. Back
151
UCU (2006) The future of research funding and assessment: the
voice of the profession, http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/1/4/researchfundingfuture
1.pdf Back
152
New Economics Foundation et al (2003) Degrees of Capture: Universities,
the Oil Industry and Climate Change, http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/degreesofcapture.pdf
Back
153
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4379457.stm Back
154
By contrast, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act
2005 provides for the protection of academic freedom in all Scottish
further and higher education institutions. Back
|