Governance in Scotland

Interesting times in Scottish educational governance, with the news that the Education Secretary in the Scottish Government, Angela Constance, has used powers granted to her by the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013 to dismiss the Chair and Board of Governors at Glasgow Clyde College.

A Scottish chair

The action was taken, according to reports, on the grounds that the College's governing body had failed in a  number of ways - its "relationship with students had broken down" and it had "breached rules on spending public money". There's a back story which includes the suspension of the Principal: the waters look pretty murky to me.

According to the Scottish Government's informal guidance on the 2013 Act,

"The grounds for removal [of a Board] are where it appears to Ministers that a board: 

i) has committed or is committing a serious one-off breach of any term or condition of grant made to it by, in the case of a regional college, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council (SFC) [or by, in the case of an assigned college which is an incorporated college, its regional strategic body]; 

ii) has committed or is committing repeated breaches of such terms or conditions; 

iii) has failed or is failing to provide or secure the provision of education of such standard as the Ministers consider to be appropriate; 

iv) has failed or is failing to discharge any of their duties properly; or 

v) has mismanaged or is mismanaging its financial or other affairs."

which, given the press reports, seems to imply that maintaining a good relationship with the students is either part of educational standards (ii above) or a duty of a board of governors (iv above). The alleged breaches of financial procedures and proper governance of meetings would have been grounds under (i) for dismissing the board, so it does seem that there's a bigger point being made here.

What's interesting from a higher education perspective is the example of how the Scottish government chooses to use its powers of intervention. Currently under discussion in Scotland is legislation which would change the way in which university governance worked, including provisions for staff and student representation, and the election of chairs. And this is not without controversy.

So Scottish Universities now have an example before them on which they can reflect.

Principals and principles

Here’s an interesting article on the Herald Scotland website. Ferdinand von Prondzynski, principal of Robert Gordon University, has reportedly written to other university leaders - just in Scotland? it isn’t clear from the article – “raising concerns about the wider impact of … campaigns” to divest themselves from fossil fuels.

A fossil-fuel divestment decision in London

This follows decisions in some universities to cease investing in fossil fuels, and is newsworthy in Scotland because of Ferdinand von Prondzynski’s role in developing proposals for changes to university governance in Scotland, including as stronger voice for students, which have now led to specific proposals by the Scottish government. (See here for a critique by Paul Greatrix, Registrar at Nottingham and acute observer of things HE.)

What’s the controversy?

On the one hand, campaigners have encouraged universities to cease investment in fossil fuels – and in some cases via direct action have caused this to happen. The argument is that by investing in a technology which causes harm, universities are acting inappropriately and immorally – “not in our name”.

The counter argument is that universities have a duty to secure good returns on investment capital that they have; that engagement helps to sustain meaningful change in the fossil fuel industry; and that universities research the things that help transition away from fossil fuels, and only by engaging can this be meaningful.

It’s a classic revolution versus reform argument. When I was an undergraduate, we had a similar situation at LSE, with a campaign to force the School to divest from South Africa, in solidarity with the anti-apartheid campaign. It was ultimately successful, but the clinching argument was, I understand, when the SU demonstrated to the LSE’s finance committee that investing outside SA would bring higher returns. Collapse of Stout Party.

The argument about fossil fuels has another dimension. There’s a concern that divesting from fossil fuels will imperil research activity in that area, and research funding. This brings student activism into direct conflict with academic freedom, and in particular the freedom to choose what to research. I suspect this means that the arguments won’t be so quickly dealt with nor go away – this is about the work of many people in the university, not just Principals and principles.

A capital week

I write at the end of a long week which saw me in each of the three capital cities on the UK mainland: Cardiff on Monday and Thursday; London on Tuesday and Friday; and Edinburgh on Wednesday. Plenty of opportunity for reflection.

Cardiff, London, Edinburgh: and some other places too

One strand of this reflection was about the changes which are occurring in the UK through devolution, and the unequal parts into which the UK is divided. Universities’ behaviour is being affected by this.

Firstly, with respect to students. Each of the nations has its own policy around student support and student tuition fees, but England, as the largest in volume and wealth, is clearly setting a tone. With each student paying £9k per year, funded through the SLC; and now without any cap on student numbers, English universities can seek to recruit (they might not succeed) as many as they like, from wherever they like.

In Wales, the government subsidises students’ fees, so that they pay only about £3,600 per year, wherever in the UK they study. Welsh universities have a financial cap on how many Welsh-domiciled students they can admit (although I understand that in practice this doesn’t constrain recruitment of Welsh students) and the net effect of this is that Welsh universities do best, financially, when they recruit plenty of students from England, creating a net inwards flow of state funding for universities.

In Scotland, universities cannot charge fees for home (or non-UK EU students), but can charge for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are grant funded in respect of the costs of educating Scottish students. This means that for Scottish universities, students from the rest of the UK are valuable, bringing fee income. But, universities are not funded at the same fee per student basis as in England and Wales, so competing with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK is tricky.

In research things are different (for now): the principal of dual support (through the block grant and, in competition, from Research Councils) is so far safe. This means that every university will get some funds for research, dependent upon their baseline quality assessed through REF. But how long will this last? As national governments (ie Scotland, Wales, NI) gain more power, will they wish to include their ‘share’ of research council funding in their allocations? Will experiments in devolution in England, like that in Manchester, lead to regional university funding?

It is an uncertain time, and each university is also having to plot its own sustainability, with uncertainties about future state/fee funding arrangements, the prospect of further cuts in the coming years, and no real confidence that post-election things will be any clearer.

There’s no moral to this reflection. But there is an obvious truth that the future for university funding and system behaviour won’t be stable for a while yet.

Scottish Governance

Recently the Scottish Government released a consultation document on University Governance. The BBC and other media picked up on this, headlining the proposals for elected chairs of governing bodies. (You can see the BBC story here, and the Scottish Government consultation document here.) The proposals are interesting and worth a bit of reflection. And certainly exciting for policy and governance wonks.

There are six specific proposals for consultation.

The first is the replacement of Privy Council functions, in respect of university governance, by a committee accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and comprising the same individuals who are consulted by the Privy Council currently on university governance matters.

The rationale is that this will speed things up and introduce an element of public scrutiny. In university folklore the Privy Council is very slow indeed and a reason often cited why universities can never change their charters and statutes or instrument and articles of government. In practice the Privy Council is now pretty quick on straightforward changes, but it’s a fair observation that previous changes in approach have not been subject to the same scrutiny. (My recollection is that the relaxation of regulation which enabled universities to slim down their charters was as a result of ministerial fiat, and not legislation, but I may be wrong).

The second proposal is for an expanded definition of academic freedom, building on the current UK definition (academic staff shall 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) by adding that academic freedom includes “the freedom to encourage the exploration of new ideas”.

I find this a little odd. Is this a bid to make enterprise feel a bit more normal as part of the academic endeavour, and encourage income from inventions, patents and the like? That might be a fine thing, but it's hardly an issue of academic freedom. If the Scottish Parliament really wanted to secure academic freedom then they could look at the legislation in New Zealand. I'll post on academic freedom another time.

The third proposal seeks to confirm the role of the Principal as Chief Executive Officer. This looks like a tidying up provision, bringing clarity to who should be accountable for public funds. But it also asks what title should be used, if not Principal, for this role. To my mind, if it looks like a Vice-Chancellor and sounds like a Vice-Chancellor, then it probably is a Vice-Chancellor. Are they hoping to make Principals into Presidents on the US model? Or is this just a distraction?

The fourth proposal is what got the headlines. And it isn't half as exciting as it sounds: the idea is not for popular (or in fact unpopular) election, like Police and Crime Commissioners. It is for a process of job description, search, shortlisting by interview and then election by academic staff and perhaps external stakeholders. Having been involved in the appointment of chairs of governing bodies, I know that it's tough to find the right person and persuade them to do the job. I'm not sure that adding a public election will lead to better outcomes.

The fifth proposal is for governing bodies to include two students, two staff members, two members nominated by Trades' Unions (one from academic and related staff; one from administrative, technical or support staff);and two alumni. The Trades' Union category is, I believe, novel; it will be interesting to see the reaction to this.

Finally, the sixth proposal is for academic boards to be confirmed as the supreme academic decision making body in a university (echoing the bicameral approach typical of chartered universities); that other than the Principal and Heads of School, all other members should be elected from amongst the university’s staff; that elected members must be a majority; and that the total size should not exceed 120.

This is, I think, quite radical. Combined with the other measures, it makes the Principal the CEO but builds in an academic check-and-balance against a university drifting from an academic mission as perceived by its academic staff. This might be seen as a move to reinforce standards, but could also be a way to guarantee conservatism within a university. Universities have found many ways to resist change. Read the Microcosmographia Academica if you need convincing of this.

FM Cornford - he of the Microcosmographia Academica

How will these proposals go down? Universities Scotland is against them:

We urge careful appraisal of whether government action now will enhance universities' implementation of the principles which are at the heart of our autonomy and success.

Which I read as a circumlocutory way of saying 'get stuffed'.

Whereas Ferdinand von Prondzynski, Principal of Robert Gordon University and chair of the 2012 Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland welcomed the report, according to Chris Havergal in the Times Higher, as completing the work of the review.

Watch this space for next steps.