Jo Johnson, the Minister for Universities and Science, gave an interesting speech last Wednesday  to Vice Chancellors gathered at the University of Sussex. It makes challenging reading for the Russell Group.

Because many universities see their reputation, their standing in prestigious international league tables and their marginal funding as being principally determined by scholarly output, teaching has regrettably been allowed to become something of a poor cousin to research in parts of our system.

I hear this when I talk to worried parents, such as the physics teacher whose son dropped out at the start of year two of a humanities programme at a prestigious London university, having barely set eyes on his tutor. Her other son, by contrast, studying engineering at Bristol, saw the system at its best: he was worked off his feet, with plenty of support and mostly excellent teaching.

He also quoted Palfreyman & Tapper^†, based on US work by Armstrong & Hamilton^‡:

…the faculty cultures and orientations of the college professoriate have much to answer for, since they have struck a disengagement contract with their students, along the lines of I don’t want to have to set and mark much by way of essays and assignments which would be a distraction from my research, and you don’t want to do coursework that would distract you from partying: so we’ll award you the degree as the hoped-for job ticket in return for compliance with minimal academic requirements and payment of high fees.

Depressingly, there is a lot of truth in these remarks. There is an assumption, in our and other universities, that teaching should be loaded onto those who cannot raise research funds or REF stars. Teaching is culturally associated with lack of success; every young academic knows that their promotion, or next job, will depend only on their grants and publications. So, the ambitious ones waste as little time as possible on teaching: just enough to stay out of trouble. Anything better is a result of personal vocation. Favoured sons and daughters are further rewarded with light teaching loads or with leeway about completing their duties.

National structures to enhance and recognise university teaching are not much better. The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, inspired by the Dearing Report,  lasted from 2000 to 2004. We now have the Higher Education Academy, but it is to lose all its central funding by 2017. Within my own department, several colleagues achieved Senior or Principal Fellow status in the HEA; all have since been removed from teaching management responsibility.

Neither will you find either of the books cited below in our library; we’re not expected to read that sort of thing. There are, however, some works by Tara Brabazon; you might try The University of Google or Digital Hemlock.

Update: The library will be getting both. Thank you, Fiona.

There must be room here for the UCU to become a proper professional body. We already have our own Journal of Further and Higher Education. Have any of you read it? But UCU Congress shows far more interest in arguing over regional committee structures and splitting of branches than it does in the credibility of our profession. Can we inspire UCU to step into the void to be left by the HEA and become the BMA of higher education?

———————–
† Reshaping the University: The Rise of the Regulated Market in Higher Education, David Palfreyman & Ted Tapper.
‡ Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality, Elizabeth A. Armstrong & Laura T. Hamilton.

Denis Nicole

Click to enlarge

We all find Mondays difficult. But I couldn’t resist drawing attention to the university’s Monday posting about the ongoing pay dispute. It didn’t go well.

1. The current pay round is 2015/16; the 2014/15 round was settled quite a while ago.
2. Unison is not in dispute; Unite is.
3. I don’t think we are opening a Shetland Campus. So the University is not in dispute with the Educational Institute of Scotland either.

A small prize to members who spot any more errors.

Meanwhile, back at 47 University Road^†, iSolutions had disabled printing for all the unions. Thank you, Lindsay^‡ for fixing it within a day or so. It has been a difficult week.

———————–
† The home of the union offices. You can find Amanda Bitouche there on Mondays to Thursdays.
‡ Lindsay Allen, the university’s head of employee relations.

Denis Nicole

Details of local press coverage regarding the marking and assessment boycott

We are pleased to report a lot of coverage in the local press concerning the current industrial action taken by UCU members.  Watch/listen out for interviews with Meridian TV and Wave Radio.

More details can be found here:

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2014-11-06/university-lecturers-to-go-on-strike/

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11580160.Uni_lecturers_boycott_marking_over_national_pensions_row/

We had an excellent attendance at Malcolm’s talk today: all seats filled and Professors sitting at his feet.

We used Panopto to record him ; you can view the video at:

https://coursecast.soton.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=8f9848b5-4318-44b0-9d4c-b7f173f44f18

It’s probably best to start about 1m 45s in; we’ll edit it properly later.

Don’t forget to vote in the ballot; you need to post your paper by tomorrow.

Denis Nicole

Areminder to members that our Annual General Meeting is being held on Thursday 28 June at 1pm in room 85/2207 (Life Sciences building, Highfield). 

The topic of this meeting is the Research Excellence Framework.  As members may be aware, UCU has major concerns about the impact of REF on higher education (http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4383).  We are concerned that the metrics used by REF are flawed, and that the process itself needs to be more transparent and consistent.  As a consequence our branch has helped with various consultations on REF nationally, and locally we are engaged in discussing the University’s REF Code of Practice and working to ensure that Equalities concerns are properly addressed.

 We know many of you are coping with a great deal of stress and uncertainty as the pressures continue to increase, so please come along and join the discussion about how we can help you get through the REF. We want to hear your feedback about how you and your colleagues are coping with REF, how your managers are supporting you, and what we can do to help.  We want to hear your concerns regarding equality and the impact of REF on our members who are early-career researchers.  This is an open discussion, so please join us and share your views.

Climate Caravan and Green Jobs for Southampton

Monday 21 May

The Climate Caravan
This has been organised by the trade union arm of the Campaign Against Climate Change to promote their Million Climate Jobs Report. This details how a government programme of investment in climate jobs, such as public transport, home insulation and renewable energy, would not only help tackle unemployment by creating up to one million jobs, but would also significantly reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions. The caravan will be visiting several businesses that show the potential for future growth in the green economy. Monday morning will start at Olive, environmental consultants based at Chilworth Science Park, then move on to see the Sustainable Building Centre recently opened by Elliotts’ Builders Merchants. The final visit is to Portswood Cycles, who sell and support electric bicycles. Alan Whitehead MP will welcome the Caravan to Guildhall Square at 1pm, when there will be a 10-minute video about climate jobs in the Itchen Suite of the Sir James Matthews Building. During the afternoon, the Caravan will remain in Guildhall Square with information about the climate jobs campaign. There will also be a variety of stalls by local campaign groups.

The Caravan tour continues the following day, with visits to Portsmouth, Brighton and finally London.

‘Green jobs’ event, Southampton Solent University, Sir James Matthews Building, Guildhall Square at 7pm.
The event will highlight how the creation of climate jobs can help solve both the economic and climate crises. Speakers from both of the City’s Universities, Southampton City Council, trades unions and campaigners will be discussing this at an open public meeting and panel discussion. Speakers include Dr. Richard Blackwell, Deputy Vice Chancellor of Southampton Solent University, Simon Kemp of the University of Southampton, UK Academic Lead on Education for Sustainable Development for the Higher Education Academy (HEA), and Councillor Simon Letts, Environment Officer for the new City Council.

These Southampton events have been organised by representatives of the Southampton and SW Hants Trades Union Council, Southampton Solent University, the University of Southampton UCU, the local Green Party and the Low Carbon Group of Southampton City Council.

Further Information
Details of the tour can be found online at www.climate-change-jobs.org
The Million Climate Jobs Report can be found online at http://www.climate-change-jobs.org/sites/default/files/1MillionClimateJobs_2010.PDF

UCU Branch Update

UCU had an initial briefing in August last year where the Director of HR (Janice Donaldson) introduced the 9 matrix model (or DAP framework) which “allows staff to be assessed on both their performance and capabilities and remunerated and developed accordingly.”

We were happy to be involved in this meeting but said that ‘the devil would be in the detail’ about how any changes were implemented. We were meant to have a series of working group meetings but these did not materialise. The proposals were put on SUSSED https://sharepoint.soton.ac.uk/sites/arr/DAP%20Framework/Home.aspx and Adam Wheeler and Janice Donaldson held 10 open meetings with staff. We welcome this activity, but have pointed out that consultation on all matters regarding pay, terms and conditions has to be with UCU as the legally recognised trade union.

We called for an emergency Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) with management and this was held on 26 March and was attended by Adam Wheeler, Janice Donaldson and Malcolm Ace, members of HR and your UCU representatives.
As a result of this meeting the University has agreed to consult with us in fortnightly meetings with Adam Wheeler and Janice Donaldson about the reward proposals. We received written answers to some of our questions and are pursuing answers to others. And crucially the University confirmed that they understand that they must consult with UCU on this issue.

General Meeting – 28 March
At the UCU General Meeting on 28 March we discussed the reward proposals. Members present highlighted a number of concerns about performance review, reward and promotion procedures and the prospect of undergoing another change to policy/process in the University. We asked members if they wanted the University to withdraw the DAP/Reward and Recognition Proposals and this was overwhelmingly carried by the meeting.

The views of members at the general meeting have given a helpful steer for your executive group. We have noted your comments about the proposals and these will inform our discussions with the University management.

What next?
We agreed to host five meetings open to all staff to ensure that we represent your views about performance review, reward and promotion at our upcoming meetings with the University management. The dates for these meetings are:

17 April 1-2pm Winchester (WSA) – Seminar room 6
20 April 12.30-2pm Highfield – 34/3001 (Education building)
26 April 1-2 Waterfront (NOCS) – 68/104/20
27 April 1-2 Southampton General Hospital – DCR on C level of the South Academic Block
30 April 1-2pm Avenue – 65/1173

Please attend one of these meetings and encourage your colleagues to join you. UCU is the sole recognised body for consultation on these issues and we need to hear your voice.

What are the issues raised so far?
Below are some of the issues that members have already raised with us.
• We have had too much change here already so we do not want to change PPDR.
• We need more training – especially for managers doing PPDR to ensure that they do not bully staff, that we support academic freedom and pursue equality.
• We agree that this University is not good a ‘talent management’. We lose lots of great staff because of job insecurity and casualised contracts.
• We seem to spend less on training and development than comparator institutions.
• We have a significant problem with promotion – especially on the teaching pathway, and there seems to be clear gender discrimination in promotion.
• We are concerned about ‘grade drift’ (that DAP will be used to require higher level tasks to be undertaken by lower grades/lower paid staff).
• We do not feel that the use of Associate Professor is meaningful in the UK context, and we are concerned at the loss of academic titles such as Reader.
• We might want a ‘total reward’ (e.g. exploring financial and non-financial rewards – such as more admin support, more scholarship time) as we don’t believe only pay motivates.
• Managers may need to be clearer about expectations of staff (including external pressures such as REF, income generation, etc) but should also protect academic freedom and work-life balance.
• Any system needs buy in from the majority (managers should not be allowed to opt out).
• We need transparent processes, clear records and follow up and effective monitoring of processes.
• We must have adequate safeguards against bullying and harassment.

The above summarises issues directly associated with the DAP proposals, but some members have also asked more fundamental questions like how could we improve management skills or the organisational culture of the University? Should we spend money and time on this new change project when there are other areas that would benefit from better resourcing?

Performance-related pay
UCU nationally and locally does not believe that performance-related pay is desired by, or acceptable to, our members. Members here are worried that this is the goal of the proposed ‘reward’ system.

A literature review by Metawie and Gilman (2005) found that “in practice performance measurement in the public sector has been a problematic area with PRP.” Their review concluded that “differences between the nature of the public sector and the private one, referring to the presence of multiple tasks and multiple principles as well as the lack of profit maximisation as the main differences and hence the main complexities surrounding the application of performance measurement and performance related pay systems in the public sector. However, there has been a disregard or rather a simplification of the psychological aspects inherent in the public sector namely public service ethos. Traditionally under the notion of public sector ethos employees benefited from an open-ended employment contract, which, in turn, created a psychological contract that is relational in nature where employees were motivated and committed to providing maximum effort and best quality services to the community in exchange for longterm job security…. [ ]….rewards based on performance, have affected employees’ feelings of job security, and hence, tend to reduce the peculiar commitment and motivation previously found among public sector workers”. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.104.9267

We believe the current DAP proposals do not understand the nature of this organisation and the work we do.

The case for Performance Related Pay (PRP) is that it:
a) Allows managers to discriminate – to reward the staff they want to reward. Helps with retention of high fliers;
b) Can be used to set targets/clear expectations (e.g. key performance indicators).
Some level 7 employees (e.g. Deans and Associate Deans) have PRP. UCU does not currently have rights to negotiate for this level.

The case against Performance Related Pay (PRP) is that it:
• Can be divisive – it’s necessarily individualistic, so cannot recognise team/collaborative work which is increasingly what we do;
• Increases potential for bullying /stress – we have already seen this with rise in UCU casework on bullying associated with PPDR and REF;
• Can be discriminatory – there is evidence that it increases the pay differences associated with diversity e.g. gender, race.

The bottom line
Southampton UCU believes that proposed changes to Reward and Performance Management will change your working lives and that the current proposals are highly problematic. The general meeting on 28 March provided us with a strong steer that we should fight these proposals on your behalf.

UCU is the recognised trades union and the University must – in law – negotiate these changes with us. UCU is your voice – please come to one of the open meetings so that we can incorporate your views into the consultation.

Catherine Pope
On behalf of Southampton UCU Executive Committee
29 March 2012