| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 37 1 May 2008 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, DCE: the 'message' and what it tells us about process and procedures; DCE: the background and the issues; DCE: a reaction from Rosemary Betterton; DCE: other reactions in brief; musical milestones; developments at Manchester; letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Life in the modern university is never quiet. Far from being havens of cloistered tranquillity conducive to the pursuit of truth, the university often appears more akin to a battleground, where antithetical views of what of a university should be clash repeatedly. Intellectual battles are one thing: they constitute the necessary conditions for academic vibrancy and progress. But the wars which modern academics have to wage are of a different order. They have to fight just to preserve the integrity of their vocation, protect their necessary freedoms and democratic interests and be constantly vigilant just in order to be able to preserve the conditions for the sort of intellectual pursuits and disputes in which they would much rather be engaged. We are all becoming used to this now. No sooner has one cloud dissipated than another appears. At the moment, there are at least two looming on the horizon, if not hovering already directly above us. One day before the end of the Lent Term, we received a message from the Vice-Chancellor announcing what seemed to be the closure of DCE (the Department of Continuing Education), although it fell short of actually saying so. The manner of the announcement and the procedure by which it was reached are almost as much topics of discussion as is the actual closure of DCE itself. Consequently, this issue of subtext will focus particularly on DCE, its future prospects and the processes of decision-making by which this will be determined. But this brings to mind the brooding presence of the second cloud, namely, the proposals to reform Statute 20. To remind readers, this statute guarantees academics 'the 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'. It also enshrines procedures, toughly negotiated at the time of their introduction, that ensure those rights and privileges are appropriately safeguarded when put to the test. It is these that the university wishes to abolish, in favour of much weaker and less rigorous structures. Discussions have apparently been taking place since then, and it was expected that proposals were to be brought to the next meeting of Senate, to be held on the 21st May. We now understand that this is not going to happen, and it is more likely to be brought before Senate in October. This is an issue none of us can ignore, and subtext will be featuring detailed discussion of this in a future issue. More than ever, we shall need to be vigilant and if the proposed reforms turn out to be detrimental to academic freedom and integrity and employment protection (for academics, uniquely, the two are closely linked), then this is a battle from which none of us will be able to afford to flinch. For it strikes at the very heart of our vocation. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF subtext was interested to hear about an informal meeting of Court members that took place recently, chaired by the LUSU President, Tim Roca, about tuition fees. An excellent presentation by Wes Streeter, the incoming NUS President, on their recently revised policy, made the evening both topical and valuable in pointing to ways Lancaster might view the issue. Contributions by Geraint Johnes, an expert in higher education funding, and Bob McKinlay on the apparent absence to date of effects on recruitment from the £3000 fee, opened the way to a discussion at which students made clear both their pride in Lancaster and the importance of the issue for them. It was good to see this initiative taking place, and for Lancaster to be at the forefront of providing a forum for the purpose. ****** Roses Week is now underway, and Lancaster are at home this year. Some
subscribers may not be aware that, although the prestige event for some
is the rugby match on the Saturday, the real highlight is on the Sunday,
when the Chancellors, Vice-Chancellors and AU Presidents of each university
compete on the croquet field. It's fair to say, then, that there's something
in Roses Week for everyone ... So, it's all good then? Well, at the risk of sounding grudging, yes, sort of. There can be little doubt that the University has made great efforts to improve its rankings, and that parents and students do pay attention to them. (Though there is some feedback from Admissions tutors at Open Days to suggest that few potential applicants use the league tables as more than a broad brush measure with which to confirm existing impression. But still.) The problem is that over the past few years, for a variety of reasons, our league table position has not been strong. Unsurprisingly, the University's reaction to this low position has been to suggest that these league tables are something of a lottery, and that the criteria they use are skewed and selective anyway. (Which may well be true.) So, while we can and should be pleased that we've done well, we can't shout too loudly about it. And there is always the wider point that if the University is forced to alter its priorities in order to score better in league tables, is this necessarily a good way of deciding where necessarily limited resources should be allocated? The detailed league table results can be seen under 'Latest News' on the University home page. ***************************************************** On 19th March 2008, members of staff received the following message from the Vice-Chancellor: 'In the context of continuing serious financial difficulties in which the Department of Continuing Education (DCE) finds itself, the University has engaged in a review of the activities of this area of the University. It is now clear from this review, which is ongoing, that a substantial reduction in the activities of DCE is required. The reduction is likely to fall in large part, though not necessarily exclusively, on the open studies programmes, elements of which may not be available from September 2008. 'It is possible that the University may have to begin consideration of active reduction in employee numbers in DCE at some point in time, whilst there is no plan to do so at present, if it became necessary we would consult fully. In this context, the University has introduced, in order to try to alleviate problems, a temporary change to its recruitment processes. Any vacancies that arise in administrative or secretarial roles will not be advertised externally until we have exhausted internal searches with DCE staff. 'The many other full-time and part-time undergraduate and post-graduate programmes of study at Lancaster University are, of course, unaffected by this decision.' The message is worthy of analysis, because it leads us to ask some obvious questions. It has been interpreted as announcing the closure of DCE, but it falls short of actually doing so. All it tells us is that a review of DCE is being undertaken and, indeed, that it is still ongoing. If that is so, then surely that is all we need to know, and surely no decisions, actions or anything else should happen until the review has been completed and its recommendations made public. At which point, we would expect those recommendations to be taken to Senate and Council for a response. If accepted, we would then expect Senate and Council to come up with a response and for actions to be taken. On the contrary, however, in place of this proper procedure, we find something quite different. We find that the conclusions of the review are being pre-empted. We are told that 'a substantial reduction in the activities of DCE is required' even though the review is not completed, and even though the outcome of that review has not been fully and properly discussed by the interested constitutional bodies. We are told that 'it is possible that the University may have to begin consideration of active reduction in employee numbers'. On what basis and who will do the considering? The only concrete announcement is of a temporary change in recruitment processes, the implication being that DCE administrative and secretarial staff are to be moved elsewhere. There is no way that such staff would be moved elsewhere unless concrete decisions have already been made about the department and staff requirements. Concrete decisions made in advance of the conclusion of the review, in advance of proper discussion by Senate and Council, and in advance of full consultation. Back to front? One might well think so. The procedures and processes here seem to be mangled and twisted. Furthermore, the actions put in place simply encourage the disintegration of the department as it is likely that staff will understandably look to secure their employment elsewhere. This would seem to be anything but a case of unintended consequences. ***************************************************** Perhaps it is no coincidence that issues about defending lifelong learning and resisting changes to university statutes have surfaced at the same time. The current government, outwardly supportive of higher education, clearly resents the remaining relative autonomy of the sector and wishes to implement swift changes of policy as and when the whim takes senior ministers. The current controversy about the impact of the sudden change in funding for students who are studying at a level equivalent to or below a qualification they already hold, involving a shift of £100 million over three years from ELQ students to first-time applicants is one example: pressures on institutions to reduce statutory protection for academic and related staff is another. Both are relevant to the position in which Continuing Education now finds itself. Lancaster's involvement in what was at first termed extra-mural studies did not take place at the outset. The Vice-Chancellor in January 1964 reminded the Shadow Senate of the extra-mural responsibilities exercised by the universities of Liverpool and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and in June 1965 the establishment of a joint committee of the university with the local Workers Educational Association was agreed. David Craig, reporting back, defined an area of possible operation for Lancaster, and this was the first of a series of recommendations, proposals and exhortations by various parts of the university and its media, including Fulcrum and Lancaster Comment. The Russell Report of 1973 encouraged the growth of non-vocational adult education as part of a national system of education, conceived of as a process continuing through life, but that did not lead to funding for Lancaster. The matter was raised at Court in 1977, and a report a year later from a working party under the aegis of the Development Committee led to a recommendation that an officer for extra-mural studies should be appointed, and Lancaster should seek to become the responsible body for a swathe of the North West. Keith Percy, appointed as organising tutor for extra-mural studies, took a proposal to the Senate in March 1980 for the admission of the general public to lectures designated as open. This was just one suggestion he had already made in a paper of 1972, the others being mutual recognition of Open University credits, part-time study leading to Part I examinations, a residential summer school for adults, and training courses for teachers of adults. In the years that followed, exploiting a variety of funding sources, most of these ideas were realised. An annual report of 1994-95 of the new Department of Continuing Education, with Professor Keith Percy as director, reported on the Summer Programme, the Summer University (credit-bearing), the Open Lectures, the Lunchtime Lectures series, and the Associate Students Scheme (with access to seminars). Liverpool's responsibilities for open studies were transferred to Lancaster in 1991 and Newcastle's in the following year. One distinctive scheme, with a strong involvement by Bill Ritchie (vice-chancellor, 1995 -2002), was a Summer School for Access, providing an intensive study experience for students with the potential for entry to higher education but who for a range of personal or family reasons might lack formal qualifications. This first ran in 1998, with government funding, and with the active involvement of the university's associated institutions. Many changes have taken place in Continuing Education since its inception, as national policy and associated funding streams varied their courses. By 2007 other offerings had been added: certificated programmes in ten areas of study, a senior learners' programme, a science week, a languages summer school, and foundation degrees in IT and work with young people. The department was by then a constituent part of the School of Lifelong Learning and Widening Participation, alongside CETAD and with a route via the Director of Regional Outreach to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor's announcement of 19 March 2008 indicates that an imminent and substantial reduction in the activities of the department is predicated. This seems to be concentrated in large part, although not exclusively, on the Open Studies programmes, and consequently, the future of specialised continuing education at Lancaster is open to doubt. It is also not clear to what extent somewhat similar provision in the Management School and elsewhere may be affected. Should the university be concerned about the reductions in this area of its work? The Strategic Plan for 2006-11, commenting on the substantial investments into Lancaster from within the region, committed the university to developing the School, and a publication of less than a year ago, A university in its region - building the economy, enriching lives, celebrated the wide range of educational opportunities for the public across the region, including open lectures, open studies, and a summer school for the National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth (itself now a victim of government reversals). Lancaster has placed substantial continuing education offerings into the region for over thirty years, in part displacing other providers in the process, and a swift retrenchment, perhaps as early as September this year, would remove high quality and imaginative provision across a wide range of disciplines from the region. In a country where the mantra is that no one can expect a single career for life, but people should expect to make drastic changes of direction, where the population is proportionately growing older and lifelong learning is an antidote to aging, and where there are serious and growing concerns about access for under-qualified young people, especially young males, a major reduction or even the demise of Continuing Education seems at best perverse. It flies in the face of agreed policy and deprives the region of access to a filigree of courses and programmes, some credit-bearing and some not, that undoubtedly contribute to the advancement of knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Rather, like the ELQ actions, many people would argue that the university has a duty to reconsider how continuing education, in its many and varied manifestations, can be developed and made new, once again, for another changing national agenda. ***************************************************** DEPARTMENT OF CONTINUING EDUCATION (DCE): A REACTION FROM ROSEMARY BETTERTON
Your message does not make clear that part of 'the context of continuing serious financial difficulties in which the Department of Continuing Education (DCE) finds itself', was the arbitrary decision by the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) to make a major cut in funding for lifelong learning to all students who are studying at or below the level of qualification they already hold. The implication of your message is that the DCE somehow brought this difficulty on itself, a statement that is not only misleading, but fails to acknowledge the problems that this decision has produced nationally for all providers of adult education, including The Open University and Birkbeck College, London. In this context, I would have expected that, as Vice-Chancellor, you would defend lifelong learning in your own HE institution, rather than seek to hasten its demise. As a recent student on the DCE's excellent courses in Open Studies and Creative Writing, I recognise the quality and value of such education, which cannot be measured in purely financial terms. Any attempt at crude accounting does not respect the educational value and extraordinary legacy of Continuing Education within higher education in this country, and more specifically of the Department at Lancaster. Often dismissed as leisure entertainment for the middle class and elderly, the openness of lifelong learning to its local and regional community has been one of the unsung achievements of UK universities. It represents a pool of experience, expertise and commitment that this University will lose at its peril. I share in your belief that one of the strengths of Lancaster University is its role as a knowledge hub in regional regeneration. It is therefore ironic that as the Vice-Chancellor you propose to cut access to the only non-degree HE courses that are available to people in the North West region. I hope that the Senate will take into account the strong views of students of DCE courses as well as their teaching staff, and provide some restraint to mitigate the effects of your proposed action. Yours sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF CONTINUING EDUCATION (DCE): OTHER REACTIONS IN BRIEF A petition to the Chancellor, Sir Christian Bonnington is currently being organised. It requests: 'a withdrawal of the threat of compulsory redundancies; proper, detailed consultation with campus unions; a continuing Lancaster University Adult Education provision in the region; a disclosure to DCE staff and campus trade unions of the full rationale for this decision; staff in DCE to be as fully involved as possible in any review of their Department; pending the results of any review, DCE to be given a two year breathing space to allow students to finish their courses and for staff to find other funding sources.' It currently has over 500 signatories, many of whom have left views and comments. The petition may be accessed at: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/lancaster-uni-department-of-continuing-education.html. ****** We understand that moves are underway to call for a special meeting of Court to discuss the situation with DCE. The constitution provides for the possibility of calling such a special meeting if it is supported by at least 50 members of Court. There is some optimism that 50 such signatories will be found. Any further news will be reported as soon as we receive it. ****** Many Senior Learners who have benefited from the provisions of DCE, both now and in the past, engaged in extensive campus leafleting on Monday (28th April). The leaflets drew attention to the great contributions of DCE to the university, to the region and to local people themselves. ****** Lancaster UCU held an Open Meeting on Wednesday 30th April to discuss the threats to DCE, the implications and possible courses of action. ***************************************************** MUSICAL MILESTONES Denis and Meg McCaldin will be familiar figures to many in the University community. Denis was for many years Director of Music as well as being the founding professor in the Department of Music. As some may already have heard, Denis and Meg have decided to leave Lancaster, after over 35 years' residence in the city, in order to move to the North-East of England, where their son and his family currently live. Denis's contribution to the life of the university and city has been enormous. Appointed initially as Director of Music, he spearheaded the development of the Department of Music as a fully-fledged academic department from 1971. At that time, academic courses were developed with a particular emphasis on performance and composition, and he himself was later appointed as the first Professor of Performance Studies in the country. He played a key role in the development of the international Lancaster concert series, barely two years old when Denis came to Lancaster, and he deserves much of the credit for making it such a distinctive part of the cultural life of the whole region. He has been Director of the Haydn Society and has conducted major concerts, both here and abroad. His presence in Lancaster has been maintained by his assuming the Presidency of the Lancaster Concert Series and by his role as Director of the Lancaster Singers. His work was recognised by his election as one of the first University Fellows. His wife, Meg, is also well known in the region. She was for many years very actively involved with Cancer Care in various paid and unpaid capacities, including as Administrator, therapist and trustee. Others remember with gratitude her work with the National Childbirth Trust, and she has also served as a local magistrate. Furthermore, she is a long-serving soprano in the Lancaster Singers. Many at the university and in the city will be saddened to hear of their impending departure, which is to take place this summer. Their warmth, good humour and stimulating personalities will be much missed. We wish Denis and Meg well for their pending move as well as good health and much happiness for their new life in the North-East. ****** As those who have attended the university's graduation ceremonies over the years will know, an indispensible feature of those events is the organ accompaniment, which play unobtrusively before, during and after the ceremony. The nature of these events is that attention is inevitably directed elsewhere, but the organist has made an invaluable contribution to the decorum and success of these events over the years. For those who care to look, they will see a distinguished figure wearing the robes of a Cambridge M.A. performing his task with aplomb. This is Ian Hare, and this year marks the 25th Anniversary of his appointment as University Organist. Indeed, the University is exceptionally fortunate to have an Organist of such skill and distinction. Ian began his career as an undergraduate, when he was Organ Scholar of King's College, Cambridge, playing under the direction of the renowned conductor, Sir David Willcocks. He was appointed to the university at Lancaster shortly thereafter, initially as Lecturer in Music under the aforementioned Denis McCaldin. Once the University Organ had been built and installed in the Great Hall, Ian was a natural choice to serve as University Organist. Indeed, he continued in this post after resigning his Lectureship in order to become Assistant Organist at Carlisle Cathedral, where he remained for some years. He is well known as an international performer - as a recitalist, accompanist and composer, and has also made several recordings. Like Denis McCaldin, he too was elected as one of the first University Fellows. To mark his twenty-five years as University Organist, he gave a special celebratory recital on the University Organ in the Great Hall in February. The imaginative programme consisted of music written by composers from the North-West of England (including pieces by Ian himself) and music with North-West connections. The concert was a fitting tribute to Ian's own musical contribution to the North-West region over the years. We congratulate Ian on his 25 years as University Organist, gratefully acknowledge his contribution to the university over the years, and look forward to the association continuing. ***************************************************** DEVELOPMENTS AT MANCHESTER A 'Reclaim the University' collective has recently been inaugurated at the University of Manchester. Predominantly a student initiative, they envisage themselves operating as a basis for mass action. They have produced a document outlining their goals which they see as a stimulus for participation. The first of these states: 'We oppose the move towards the business model at universities: knowledge is not a commodity, education should not be commercialised, businesses should not be calling the shots at out departments and the worth of a study should not be judged according to how much money it creates.' We at subtext, of course, could hardly agree more. Although the developments they identify and decry will by no means be news to us and our readers, it is nonetheless encouraging to find the cause being taken up as a student initiative. Increasingly, students and younger academics are taking the new managerial barbarism for granted as normality, so it is encouraging to find students finding such a model to be intrinsically wrong and educationally destructive. They have invited the academic staff to join them in their endeavours. In a letter to staff, they said, 'we decided to stage a protest and a week of campaigns to raise awareness throughout the university community about this matter, and empower members of the university to raise their own concerns. Furthermore, we hope to bring our criticisms to the governors and of the university and draw them into a debate about how to gauge the opinions of students and staff in the university more effectively. The week will run from 21st to the 25th of April 2008 and the main protest will be held in the afternoon of Tuesday 22nd of April.' We hope that the week of events went well and that the initiative is successful. We hope too that they will provide a basis for further action. We at subtext will be watching its development with interest. ***************************************************** LETTERS The subtext editors' in-box is subject to the plague of SPAM, as is almost everyone else's. Such SPAM is usually easily identified and quickly discarded. We were, however, somewhat intrigued to find an e-mail entitled, 'We Caught You Naked, Subtext Editors'. The mind boggled. Genuine or not, we thought the e-mail best discarded. Here is the latest collection of letters that clearly were genuine, and which we were glad to receive. Dear subtext, I received the 20 March subtext, and read the editorial about students wanting more contact time, a few minutes ago, when I should have been in a three hour undergraduate seminar. I wasn't there because, out of 14 students in the group, not one turned up. Attendance in many courses is extremely patchy as it is, so I think it is clear that the editorial writer is correct in thinking that students do not want more formal classroom contact, which makes the recent policy on contact hours perhaps less relevant than was thought by those responsible for it. On the other hand, the existence of the policy is useful in one way, in that I can refer to it at Open Days when parents ask about contact time, which is what I think the policy is really for: deflecting the sort of criticism that has been directed at, particularly, Bristol, and especially at traditional humanities subjects like History and English Lit. where contact hours at many universities have traditionally been sparse. On the matter of office hours; I have resisted this trend and have a notice on my door to the effect that students should email me for a mutually convenient appointment (and if they ask about a fixed office hour I tell them I don't have one and why). I am also happy to accommodate students who drop by 'on spec.', provided I don't have anything too pressing on at the time. This system has proved highly satisfactory for both sides, with no complaints from students once they know the arrangement. I am not inundated by students dropping by all the time, either. I commend it to fellow subtext readers. Yours aye, Richard Austen-Baker, Law School ****** Dear subtext, In the last issue of subtext, you wrote: 'Word reaches us of a game played in some bars on campus of a Friday afternoon. It begins with the publication of LUText. Players search for mentions of Professor Cary Cooper, and drinking takes place on the following scale. A mention on local radio; 1 drink. National radio; 2 drinks. Local TV news; a short. National TV news: a cocktail. Finally, in the (hitherto unheard of) case that Prof Cooper is not mentioned anywhere in LUText on a given week, then there will be no drinking and everyone will go to confession instead, for the world has surely come to an end.' And of course with LUText appearing just after subtext in my inbox this would be the only week in which he's not mentioned at all? Quick! To the bomb shelters, the apocalypse is coming! :) Paul Tipper, ISS ****** Dear subtext, Congratulations to all concerned on an exceptionally informative and stimulating final edition to close the Lent Term. The item relating to the Pro-Vice Chancellor (External Relations) made particularly good reading. Your effort and dedication to assessing and commenting on the important issues of campus is much appreciated. Happy vacation, Denis McCaldin ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |