Newslink 76

newslink

Issue number 76

Inside this issue AUA Elections 2013 A Level-Playing Field for the AUB

Inspiring professionalism in higher education

2A A

W

I K

Featured in this issue Front over Picture: Provided by Tempest Photography Proofreaders: Laura Ashcroft – AUA National Office Dr Katy Beavers MAUA – University of Westminster Liz Buckton FAUA – University of Sheffield Lisa Burton MAUA – Warwick Business School

3 5 6 8 9 10

Neil Matthews MAUA Sarah Megson MAUA – University of Kent

12

Michele Wheeler FAUA

13 14 15 16

Chair’s Column AUA Elections A week in the Life: Ian Hamley The 2012 South Africa Study Tour Mount Snowdon Climb Professional Development Series Connecting, Communicating and Collaborating: Expanding your CPD Opportunities Perspectives Overview Philanthropy AUA Annual Awards Joan Balchin Memorial Awards

18

University Administration since 1974: a Personal Perspective 19 Alison Johns FAUA short-listed for Guardian University Award 20 Fair Admissions in 2013 and Beyond 21 Student at Large 22 A Level-Playing Field for the AUB 23 Comparison of the Australian and UK HE Systems 24 The Need for Change in the HE Sector 25 AUA Events 26 Network News

education Inspiring professionalism in higher

bition AUA Annual Conference and Exhi tors and managers the conference for HE administra rence Centre Edinburgh International Confe 25 - 27 March 2013

www.aua.ac.uk

AUA NEWSLINK 3

Chair’s Column

Universities without Administrators Author: Matthew Andrews FAUA, Chair of AUA and Academic Registrar, Oxford Brookes University

It would be hard to argue against the assertion that the word ‘University’ represents the most interesting concept of the three words in the title of our Association. I’m certainly not going to.

What can sometimes seem a more significant challenge is to demonstrate how universities and administrators are natural partners.

More than once it has been put to me that universities could survive without administrators: ‘who is more essential’, the inquirer asks rhetorically, ‘the academic or the administrator?’

The apparently correct response is implied clearly enough. Amongst the many problems with this question is the central error it contains: that the question implies a certain definition of a university which would require no administration or be as functional as one without. I believe that to understand the role of the administrator in higher education we need to start with an understanding of what a university is.

The attentive reader will note at this point that I am not the first person to attempt to define what a university is!

Many significantly greater individuals have over several centuries created a considerable body of material on the topic. I shall therefore be brief but it will help us to understand where we are today if we can appreciate a little of the journey we have taken to get here.

Although institutions of higher learning date back long before the first two universities in Bologna and Paris, the university is principally a medieval and ecclesiastical concept: a place for learning in arts and one or more of the three higher faculties of medicine, law, and theology, and for recognising new teachers (or masters – what we now call granting degrees). Born out of the studium generale, which meant simply a school at which students were welcome from all over Europe, the term universitas was used at first to describe all the teachers and students attached to a school. It did originally mean a

corporation but more a loose network of agreements by which teachers and students each defended their own interests.

Over time these arrangements became fixed and existing schools acquired formal recognition (such as Oxford and Cambridge) and others were created ab initio as new universities (such as St Andrews). As universities became corporate entities which could be created, the question of who had authority to establish a university became a political matter.

The traditional right of establishment had vested with the Pope but the Reformation meant national authorities assumed that privilege in many countries.

When London University was founded in the 1820s (which later became University College London) there was much public debate about what a university was. Robert Southey, the Poet Laureate, argued that the socalled ‘London University’ was nothing of the sort. ‘There was’, he remarked, ‘a curious and threefold impropriety in assuming the title of University for a single college, which the crown had not created, and from which the science of divinity was specially excluded!’

The most famous attempt to define a university is John Henry Newman’s The Idea of a University. In a series of lectures and essays during the 1850s Newman defended the Catholic University of Ireland (which later became University College Dublin) of which he was the first and recently appointed Rector. The contemporary reader is often struck by the religious aspect of Newman’s work.

So the seemingly simple definition he offers, that a university is a place of teaching universal knowledge, is made harder to place in a modern context by his assertion that a university cannot fulfil this duty without the Church’s assistance and that a university is not place to undertake research (to extend rather than pass on knowledge).

Newman, like Southey, was still wrestling with the medieval inheritance. The nineteenth century saw the painful reinvention of universities, as their traditional role expanded to include professional education and research, and as their doors opened to admit people of all faiths and none and to admit women.

The twentieth century saw the continued growth of institutions along the pattern set in the nineteenth century. Most institutions now state their objectives around three main themes: teaching,

The attentive reader will note at this point that I am not the first person to attempt to define what a university is! Many significantly greater individuals have over several centuries created a considerable body of material on the topic. I shall therefore be brief but it will help us to understand where we are today if we can appreciate a little of the journey we have taken to get here.

4A A

W

I K

hair’s olumn The crucial point is that the administration which supports the corporate nature of an institution, within a massified and more complex higher education sector, is not coincidental to the definition of a university but rather essential to it.

That’s not a reflection of some modern twist in how we now view universities, but a reality based on the concept of a university going back to their medieval evolution as studia generalia.

research, and the delivery of broader benefits to society (including, for example, knowledge exchange with industry and cultural activities). The exact route by which a university is established is helpfully described in detail by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and is a responsibility of the Privy Council. The Privy Council is also responsible, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, for approving the use of the words ‘university’ and ‘university college’.

What do we learn from the history of universities, and the developing concept of what one was, that might be of relevance today? And how might any of this help us place the activities of administrators in higher education?

There are two points which strike me as especially relevant. First, that universities evolved as formal organisations to enhance learning.

Students (often novices in holy orders) had travelled throughout Europe for centuries, and schools had existed in Europe and elsewhere for centuries too, but universities evolved to create structures that would assist learning.

They evolved to offer structures for security and uniformity, and for awarding degrees. That evolution has not ended.

The oldest universities are amongst some of the oldest organisations in the world, and their longevity is in part

due to the ability of each generation to redefine the idea of a university.

Second, the creation of degrees which recognised achievements in learning and conferred privileges and responsibilities has remained a constant of the definition of a university throughout the centuries.

A university is not simply a place where knowledge is stored and can be accessed. It is a place where a specified course of learning can be undertaken.

The awarding of degrees implies the need for an administrative machinery to set the curricula, assess students, and so on.

Universities therefore are corporate entities providing formal and structured learning which is terminally recognised by the granting of a degree to successful students. As universities have grown and evolved, so the complexity of the administrative operation associated with these tasks has grown too. The national interest in the benefits to be derived from universities has also expanded.

Society has grown larger and become more complex and universities have reflected that.

How that administration is carried out can – and of course does – vary from institution to institution. But that the administration needs to happen, so that those activities can be carried out which are essential to the idea of a university, does not vary. The scale and complexity of the higher education sector has created the need for specialised roles to look after the administrative aspects of a university’s existence. Where previously many of the administrative functions would have been carried out by the same staff who also taught students, these roles are now undertaken by staff dedicated to that purpose; but that does not mean the functions of those specialized staff are any less essential.

So when trying to determine whether the academic or the administrator is more essential to the idea of a university, the answer is that both are equally essential: the university could not exist without both functions being undertaken by staff with the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience. This brings us back to the AUA. The AUA exists to advance learning through promoting excellence in higher education administration and management. The sector now consists of more institutions than ever, and more types of institution and various associated organisations which are not teaching bodies, but they are all direct descendants of Bologna and Paris.

A university is not simply a place where knowledge is stored and can be accessed. It is a place where a specified course of learning can be undertaken. The awarding of degrees implies the need for an administrative machinery to set the curricula, assess students, and so on.

AUA NEWSLINK 5

A A lections 2013

Board of Trustees and Vice-Chair (Chair Elect) acancies The following positions on the Board of Trustees become vacant on 31 July 2013: • The position of Vice-Chair (Chair Elect) on the end of the term of office of Christopher Hallas FAUA. The newly elected member will serve a year as Vice-Chair (1 August 2013 to 31 July 2014), followed by two years as Chair (1 August 2014 to 31 July 2016), followed by a final year as Vice-Chair (1 August 2016 to 31 July 2017).

• Two ordinary vacancies for elected members of the Board of Trustees upon the end of the second term of office of Tessa Harrison and upon the end of the 1 year casual vacancy served by Christine Matthewson. These ordinary vacancies are for the three year period from 1 August 2013 to 31 July 2016.

All members of the AUA who want to contribute more to the formal running of the Association, and feel they have the appropriate skills, knowledge, and experience to do so, are invited to stand for election. Candidates with financial or legal expertise are especially encouraged to stand for election.

About Being a rustee The AUA is the professional association for all staff working in administration and management in higher education in the UK and Republic of Ireland. It offers a broad range of personal and professional development opportunities, from the Annual Conference, to one-day events, and from the Postgraduate Certificate to accredited tiers of membership. The AUA employs a team of staff in the National Office based at the University of Manchester, and has a turnover in excess of £800k per annum. The AUA is a high profile organisation which enjoys a range of formal and informal partnerships with other related professional associations, and sectorial and governmental bodies throughout the world as well as within the UK. The senior body within the AUA charged with the effective and efficient operation of the Association is the Board of Trustees.

The Trustees are members of the AUA who wish to share their abilities, knowledge,

and experience to help the Association thrive and grow. Trustees in the AUA are unpaid, but reasonable expenses are reimbursed. Being a Trustee is rewarding and enjoyable, and an opportunity to make a positive difference and serve the Association whilst learning new skills. It also brings with it excellent opportunities to raise your own professional profile, and to develop a network with other senior staff throughout the sector.

The Board normally meets four times per year. Trustees are expected as a minimum to attend these meetings, which tend to be held in Manchester or London. In addition, however, Trustees are expected to play a full role in the life of the AUA. This may include speaking at events, writing articles for Newslink, leading a short-life working group, or attending other associations’ conferences as a representative of the AUA. If you’re thinking of standing it’s important that you have a strong personal commitment to the AUA’s aims and charitable objective. Trustees have duties and responsibilities to the AUA, which is an unincorporated charity.

The Trustees therefore have, and must accept, ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of the AUA, ensuring that it is solvent and well-run, and delivering the charitable outcomes for the benefit of its members and the higher education sector which it serves.

Further information about what being a Trustee means, and on what the areas of responsibility include, can be found on the Charity’s Commission website: www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ About Being the hair The Chair is a Trustee like the other Trustees. In addition, the Chair presides at meetings of the Board and is the line manager for the senior staff of the National Office. One of the officers of the Association, alongside the Treasurer, Vice-Chair, and Secretary to the Board, the Chair also takes an active role supporting the staff of the National Office. The Chair is the senior representative of the AUA.

The opportunities to develop a professional profile and engage with the most senior and influential figures in the higher education sector are significant. For example, the Chair is currently invited to attend senior HEFCE events, sits on the Editorial Board of the THE, and receives regular invitations to speak at national events on behalf of the AUA. The Chair has to be prepared to dedicate time and energy to the role but the rewards in return are significant.

Informal enquiries Informal enquires about standing as a Trustee or as Chair may be directed to the current Chair: Mr Matthew Andrews FAUA the Academic Registrar at Oxford Brookes University on 01865 483128.

Membership of the Board The Board of Trustees consists of: • Chair of the Association – elected • Vice-Chair of the Association – elected • Six members of the Association – elected • Two members of the Council nominated by the Council and appointed by the Board • The Chair of the Board of Studies – ex-officio • Up to two members of the Association co-opted to the Board • A Treasurer appointed by the Board each year In addition, the Secretary, who is a senior member of staff from the National Office, attends meeting. The Board is serviced by the Clerk, who is an appointed member of the AUA. lection imetable 4 March 2013 Call for nominations issued 25-27 March 2013 Annual Conference and Exhibition 15 April 2013 Nominations close at 3 pm 7 May 2013 Voting opens 7 June 2013 Close of voting 21 June 2013 Declaration of results 1 August 2013 Terms of office commence

6 AUA NEWSLINK

Behind the scenes

A week in the life of a Director of Faculty Administration Name:

Ian Hamley FAUA

Position:

Director of Faculty Administration

Institution:

Birmingham City University

Ian Hamley’s first role in university administration came shortly after he graduated from Warwick University in 1995. Ian took on a 3 month contract at the University of Central England (now Birmingham City University – BCU) which resulted in a 6 year spell in faculty administration. Ian worked as a Research Contracts Administrator at Coventry University for a year, followed by 8 years as Registry Manager in the Registrar’s Department at the University of Nottingham. In July 2010 Ian became the Director of Faculty Administration in the Faculty of Education, Law and Social Sciences (ELSS) at BCU. Ian is also a graduate of Coventry University, the University of Central England and Loughborough University. Ian has been a long-standing member of the AUA, is a mentor on the AUA PgCert and is an Advocate at BCU. Ian was awarded Fellowship status in October 2012.

Monday Mondays start with getting my two children dressed, out of the house and into a pre-school breakfast club, which thankfully they cannot wait to get to!

The bus stop is right outside the school and I’m in the office around 9am, having scanned through work emails on my phone on the way in. A quick trip to get a large latte from the café and I’m ready to start the working week!

I meet my senior team each Monday morning for an hour, to talk through the known priorities for the week ahead so that we can support, coordinate and plan the work of the Faculty’s professional services staff. The Faculty has a lot of operational responsibility for the ‘student life-cycle’ so there’s always plenty to discuss. Following a number of staffing changes over the summer, I then spend the best part of 3 hours finalising the shortlisting for a number of vacant roles, working with panel members to confirm the interview arrangements and agreeing on some questions and selection tests.

The afternoon is spent holding 1:1 catch up meetings with colleagues who report directly to me - the Deputy Director

of Administration and an Operations Manager. I do think it is important to give colleagues regular ‘protected time’ in the diary for these informal catch up meetings and this is an expectation of all the Faculty’s line managers. It also helps me to remain aware of any issues or problems that might be brewing!

I end the day somewhere between 5 and 6 pm by reading through copies of colleagues’ ‘Individual Performance Reviews’ – BCU’s annual performance management system. In ELSS, we are ‘tagging’ each target with the relevant professional behaviours from the AUA’s CPD Framework and I am really impressed with how all of the Faculty’s staff have embraced this and are able to demonstrate some excellent ‘real life’ examples of how they can be used in a variety of different roles.

Tuesday As an early morning person I’m in the office by around 7.45 am and sifting through e-mails. I try and answer those that are relatively straight forward (it feels like the minority) and prioritise those that need a little more thought and/or the involvement of other

colleagues (it feels like the majority).

The first main meeting of the day is at the University’s Attendance Monitoring Project Board. We have introduced a bespoke system to monitor the attendance of all our registered students and the Project Board brings together academic, technical and administrative staff from across the University to rollout the system. We have developed the system all ‘in house’ and all colleagues are working together to share their ideas and suggestions as to how we can capture the attendance data of our students and then use it to help inform our student progression and retention strategies.

Having grabbed a bite to eat on the way back, it’s straight into another meeting.

As Chair of the Faculty’s Health and Safety Committee, I meet regularly with one of the University’s Health and Safety Advisors who is great at steering me in the right direction. I’m relatively new to health and safety legislation and its various requirements so I do have to be on the ball! The Faculty is doing some great work, however, and we have developed a number of ways to help manage the work/life balance of colleagues.

AUA NEWSLINK 7

I then go straight into another meeting – the Line Manager’s Forum. I set this quarterly meeting up shortly after joining the Faculty where all of the Faculty’s line managers get together and share good professional practice, get some bespoke training from Human Resources and Health and Safety, etc. The main topic for this meeting is how we are going to manage the roll out of the University’s 4 Core Values to the Faculty’s professional services team. We have an excellent session with a colleague from HR and form an action plan on how to take this forward with each of our teams. Again, the relevance of the 9 professional behaviours is clear to the daily work of professional services staff!

As the afternoon draws to a close, I meet with the University’s Information Manager to go through a couple of subject access requests that have come in, requiring me to provide a lot of specific information. The help of the Faculty’s Course Administrators is invaluable on this. Having concluded business, we end up talking quite philosophically about how business intelligence and corporate data stem from day-to-day business processes and the ever-increasing inter-connectivity of electronic data. My head starts to feel numb, so we close the meeting and I finish the day off by reading the agenda and associated papers for the next meeting of Faculty Board – the Faculty’s most senior academic governance committee of which I am the Executive Secretary.

Wednesday Another 7.45 am start and I’m reviewing emails. My first meeting is with Jayne, my PA (who has just joined the AUA). We run through all the appointments that are coming up, and review action points from the various working groups and Committees on which I sit. Due to Jayne’s excellent organisational skills, I’m on top of things – at least for this week.

colleagues don’t always have to come to me. I like getting out and seeing what is happening on the ground.

I then have a monthly catch up with a colleague from another Faculty who is the other Advocate for BCU. We both jointly took on the role in August 2012 and we have a really productive talk about some ideas and ways of raising the profile of the AUA. The plan is to hold an AUA meeting in December 2012 and a network Seminar in 2013. Trying to get two ‘University firsts’ off the ground may be ambitious, but we’re both determined to give local members an opportunity to come together and share the benefits of being an active AUA member. We’ve had excellent support from our HR Department and also from Directorate, which really does help.

Thursday The main part of the morning is taken up with a meeting of the Senior Administration Group which is comprised of me and 3 senior line managers. The focus of the meeting is to concentrate more on strategic and long-term issues and not on immediate priorities (we deliberately chose to keep those for Monday mornings). We mainly talk about preparing for the year’s coursework submission process (some 40,000 individual items will be coming our way this academic year), how we are going to produce the examination timetables in January, April/May and July and the associated training of invigilation staff.

A number of staffing issues are talked through and we all agree to close business and retire for some food!

After lunch, the rest of the day is spent concentrating on my emails and I appear to have cleared the majority from this week. The day ends with a regular catch up with the 3 Heads of School and the Faculty’s Financial Controller.

Friday During the first part of the morning I run a monthly drop in session for all of the Faculty’s professional services staff to come and have an informal chat and generally catch up with what is happening across the Faculty. ELSS is split over 2 buildings so I alternate where these are held which means that

I treat myself to a few presses of the ‘snooze’ button this morning and arrive in the office around 8.30 am, again with a large latte in hand. Today is the termly meeting of the University’s Academic & Support Services Health and Safety Committee – a cross-

University meeting of colleagues with health and safety responsibilities. We get updates on changes to University policies and legislation and share updates on where each area is with its health and safety systems. I have a lot to remember and take back to the Faculty for local implementation, so a to do list is quickly created. With the weekend looming, I am likely to forget things without making a note!

The final part of the afternoon is spent on a Skype call with Angela - my PgCert mentee from Liverpool University. It’s our first meeting and we share expectations and ideas on how we can work together. I am really impressed with her enthusiasm and energy and I’m sure she is going to do very well indeed.

By 5pm I decide that the end of the working week is here and having had a quick peek at next week’s diary, I pack up for the week. I try not to take work home with me over the weekend and I’m successful in sticking to that – for this weekend at least. No major plans for the weekend, other than planning not to watch ‘Strictly’. It transpires that I’m not successful in sticking to it this weekend, as my 7 year old daughter decides my lap is more comfortable than anything else in the lounge and I’m pinned to the sofa….

8 AUA NEWSLINK

International News

AUA/AHUA 2012 South Africa Study Tour Author and Study Tour member: Marcella Keher MAUA, University of Birmingham

The AUA/AHUA Study Tour visited South Africa from 11 to 20 November 2012, visiting nine institutions of higher education and affiliated organisations as well as enjoying many iconic sights and experiences during a packed schedule that took the team to three of the country’s major cities.

The objectives of the tour were: to undertake a fact-finding mission investigating major trends, pressures and future directions in HE in South Africa; to compare contemporary issues and exchange ideas with colleagues in South African institutions; and to develop the profile in South African HE institutions of the AUA, the AHUA and ITS Evula (a specialist training and development company which assisted with the coordination of the tour). The Tour Team sought to gain an understanding of the organisation and make-up of the South African HE sector at a time of huge social, cultural and economic change, focusing on three specific themes. Firstly: Getting in to University, exploring issues around application and admissions processes, over/under subscription and approaches to widening participation. Secondly: Life Beyond the Classroom, in which issues around student unions and societies, safety on campus and student residences were discussed. Thirdly: Professional Development which encompassed recruitment and retention of support staff, equality and diversity and the role of professional associations in supporting and developing administrative staff.

We started our Tour in Pretoria with a visit to the University of Pretoria (UoP). Here we met a range of colleagues and were able to have detailed discussions around our three themes. We returned to UoP later in the week to continue the conversations and to enjoy a full campus tour. Our next stop was the South African Council on Higher Education, an independent statutory body which is responsible for quality assurance and promotion. This proved to be a very interesting and informative visit as we learnt a great deal about the recent history of HE in the country, the impact of the 1997 Higher Education Act and the issues facing the sector moving forward.

The Tour then took us into Johannesburg, where we spent a day at the University of Johannesburg (UoJ). We visited two of its five campuses, Auckland Park and Soweto.

The day at UoJ provided a very different experience of HE in South Africa for the Team to reflect on and generated some interesting discussion at a dinner hosted by the University later. Back in Pretoria the team went on to visit a private institution, Varsity College, which is a campus of the Independent Institute of Education. Our final stop in this part of the country was

Higher Education South Africa, a body which represents 23 of South Africa’s Vice Chancellors of public universities. Here we heard about the current issues facing VC’s and Registrars from a national perspective and the plans in place to improve infrastructure and participation.

The Group headed south to Cape Town where we visited three institutions – Cape Peninsula University of Technology, University of the Western Cape and University of Cape Town. In conversations here, we began to appreciate more the context in which HE in South Africa had been changing within a post-Apartheid society, and the different approaches institutions have taken to responding to the government’s Transformation agenda.

Our final visit was to the beautiful town of Stellenbosch to meet with colleagues from the town’s University.

Although the schedule was packed, we still managed to enjoy many of the sights of South Africa, including a visit to a game reserve, where we were lucky enough to see many of the “big 5”. We tested our head for heights by taking the cable car to the top of Table Mountain to enjoy spectacular views across the Cape, and took a boat to Robben Island for a thoughtprovoking tour of the infamous prison.

We were overwhelmed by the hospitality extended to us by all of our hosts and are indebted to them for the time they took to meet with us and discuss with us so openly many of the issues they are dealing with on a day to day basis, and to ITS Evula for their help in the organisation of many of the visits.

A A

W

I K9

Philanthropy

Every little helps!

Author: Emma Price MAUA, Head of Quality, Corporate Performance and Quality, University of London International Programmes

Giving to charity can be a rewarding and self satisfying experience but for Emma Price MAUA it is rewarding in more ways than one.

She will not only climb Mount Snowdon and cross it off from her bucket list but she will also be the first person in the history of AUA to actively raise money for the association. Below Emma talks about her challenge and what it means for her.

On Friday 19 April 2013 I will be climbing Mount Snowdon in Wales. Approaching a ‘big birthday’ I was looking for a physical challenge to push myself and reach a goal in my fitness training. Snowdon has always been on my ‘I really should go there/climb that’ list and it therefore seemed like the perfect challenge.

I have chosen to climb Snowdon for charity as for me this is a substantial personal challenge, and I’m not going to be volunteering to run marathons anytime soon! Preparing and actually climbing the mountain knowing that people have donated is in all honesty the most effective motivator!

My personal trainer at the gym has taken on the challenge with glee and has devised a fiendishly difficult exercise plan involving lots of interval training and steep incline walks. I try and get to the gym a couple of times a week and some weeks I’m more successful than others.

The AUA is my chosen charity as it has played a significant part in my professional life over the last couple of years so I wanted to be able to support the AUA in a new way.

To help prepare for the Snowdon climb I will be climbing Pen Y Fan in March and will be making use of my long weekend in Edinburgh for the 2013 AUA Conference and Exhibition to walk up Arthur’s Seat. Not in Snowdon’s league but it all helps!

Snowdon is the highest mountain in Wales at 1,085 meters. There are a number of possible ascents up to the top, including the ‘easy’ but long Llanberis Path which follows the route of the railway line to the popular Miner’s track which skirts the Llyn llydaw lake. Being a bit of a sucker for a good view, I will be tackling the Miner’s track.

All donations will go to the AUA Development Fund which will help members to support their own professional development.

The work AUA does is meaningful to many lives, being happy professionally has a positive knock-on effect in your personal life. You may think why should I give money to the AUA there are more worthwhile charities I can donate to but even by donating just a little bit you will be helping AUA to make a difference. Admittedly they won’t be curing illnesses or helping the homeless but they will be able to offer support to many people in the sector.

AUA helps people achieve their career potential. It gives them the confidence to boost their skills and allows them to take advantage of the many opportunities to network.

Through the AUA I have been able to develop my own professional behaviours and it has given me the confidence to extend my network of professional contacts. I think it is really important that others have the opportunity to fully access the benefits that come from being an AUA member and if I have to climb a mountain to help then that’s the sort of challenge I want!

If you would like to support my climb you can text a donation using 70070 and your message TAUA00 £xx with the amount up to £10 or donate online at www.aua.ac.uk/EPSnowdon Please leave me a message of support as well. You can also follow my training adventures at @ P nowdon on Twitter.

10 AUA NEWSLINK

Professional Development

Professional Development Series Author: Catherine Lillie, AUA Executive Officer (Professional Development), AUA National Office

In the next of this series of articles, Catherine Lillie, AUA’s Executive Officer (Professional Development), focuses on the second aspect of the AUA CPD Framework into which each behavioural group is split.

The three aspects can be summarised as follows: Self • Behaviours that may be observed whatever the working situation Others • Behaviours that may be observed when interacting with and influencing others, or when managing colleagues Organisation/sector • Behaviours that may be observed when influencing at organisational level or representing the organisation The descriptor for the behaviour Developing Self and Others captures in a nutshell how the three aspects of self, others and organisation interlink ‘Showing a commitment to own development and supporting and encouraging others to develop their knowledge, skills and behaviours to enable them to reach their full potential for the wider benefit of the organisation’. This article will look at some of the ways the Framework can be and has been used to develop others.

Team development In the previous series of articles in which Jan Shine examined each of the nine professional behaviours of the AUA CPD Framework, what is common across all of them is that by being aware of and developing our own behaviours, we can better work with others. In addition to enabling us to identify our own behaviours, the Framework can also help teams to discover more about themselves. The tools, templates and behaviours provided with the Framework (which can all be found at cpdframework.aua.ac.uk) can be used, for example, to: • assess CPD needs at a team level and develop departmental learning and development plans conducting a team level analysis can identify gaps and the best ways to fill them, and enables managers to prioritise training and development needs across the team. This applies equally to both skills/competencies (perhaps everyone does not need a certain skill to ensure the team performs well) and behaviours (perhaps there is a team-wide problem with communication that needs to be addressed). CPD plans that link to strategic objectives will also help teams and departments to align to organisational priorities.

• facilitate team development through learning and development events the professional behaviours could be taken individually or as a set to structure team away days or development sessions. Focussing both on the positive behaviours that enable individuals and teams to carry out their work well, and also on those behaviours which require improvement can be a powerful way of enhancing team cohesion and values.

• identify team strengths and development needs. as an example, the AUA National Office used the CPD behaviours coaching wheel to identify firstly our individual confidence against each of the behaviours, and then our confidence as a team. We then examined where we felt our team confidence ought to be. This enabled us to clearly identify what we felt the development needs of the National Office team as a whole were, in addition to helping us to better understand each other.

As teams are prone to regular change and are subject to external factors exerting pressure on them, the Framework can provide a stable and constant foundation for team activities.

AUA NEWSLINK 11

A shared understanding The Framework can also help teams to develop a shared understanding of, and alignment to, a standard approach to CPD. This common approach will facilitate joint staff development activities across departments, teams, institutions and regional groups which can be particularly beneficial for teams or institutions working across different sites.

In their pilot project, the University of Nottingham’s Research and Graduate Services (RGS) used the Framework in just such a way. The aims of their project were to: • Enhance individual and team performance • Generate a greater sense of shared identity within the different sections of RGS • Foster greater collaboration and sharing of good practice • Increase understanding of the ways in which RGS can support colleagues in schools, faculties and other professional services.

A variety of activities were undertaken including a review of the framework and identification/prioritisation of the professional behaviours by the head of the different sections of RGS, holding a

workshop to review and consider the importance of each of the AUA professional behaviours to RGS as a whole and within each of the different sections, and follow-up activities to look at how the Framework could be used as part of their new PDPRP process.

Where the Framework is used in appraisal systems, this common standard can also help managers and individuals to give and receive feedback more effectively: if the reviewer and reviewee already have a shared understanding of the professional behaviours expected in a certain role or team, it is easier to broker those sometimes difficult conversations about performance improvement.

Each of the behaviour descriptors has examples of key and valued behaviours as well as behaviours that may identify a need for further development.

These are offered as a positive tool for self-assessment and, whilst some behaviours may be more important to a role than others, they can help to clarify what individuals can do to develop in their role, and thereby make a more positive contribution to the team and organisation. The expectations around the effective behaviours for each role can be embedded from the induction stage, where they can be provided alongside a comprehensive picture of the role requirements (including job tasks, skills, knowledge, qualifications).

Developing others The Framework can also be used to help to develop colleagues, either in their current role or to enable succession planning. For example, in their pilot project, The University of Sheffield Student Services Department used the Framework to support the development of their team leaders. The desired outcomes of the project were an increase in confidence and

performance of the team leaders in their management role, a department better equipped to develop its staff and an improved sense of team cohesion following restructuring. The project employed a variety of interventions to meet these objectives including workshops, mentoring and selfgenerating activity. Whilst the project is still ongoing and formal evaluation has not yet taken place, it is clear that in ensuring that team leaders are fully confident and effective in their role, the engagement, motivation and effectiveness of the whole team is enhanced.

Developing others is not solely the preserve of team leaders or managers.

We can all help others to perform

better by, for example, participating in mentoring programmes, offering support or training to new members of staff, or sharing our experience and reflections on tasks or activities.

Sometimes people learn more in a five-minute conversation in the corridor than in a full day’s training. If however you do attend a workshop or conference, share your learning with your colleagues when you get back to the office. Take opportunities to give responsibility to colleagues which may stretch them, and ensure that you take time to give constructive feedback and praise to others on regular occasions.

By developing others we will all individuals, teams and organisations - be better equipped to meet the challenges of the future.

12 AUA NEWSLINK

Enhancing Your Digital Skills

Connecting, Communicating and Collaborating: Expanding your CPD Opportunities Author: Sue Beckingham FAUA, FSEDA, FHEA, Learning Teaching and Assessment Co-ordinator, Sheffield Hallam University

It goes without saying that to move forward professionally we need to continually develop our skills and knowledge.

For many this may include learning from those with whom we work, attending conferences and workshops, or indeed more formal learning in the form of accredited courses. The AUA provides many opportunities through the annual conference, network events and the Post Graduate Certificate in Professional Practice. Such professional development (CPD) can also provide opportunities to meet like-minded people, both face-to-face and through organised online activities.

CPD may also pave the way to preparing for a career shift by acquiring new skills.

Also valuable is informal learning which might include activities that are outside work-related subjects and provide personal enrichment.

(where participants are online at the same time) and asynchronously (contributions can be made at one time and responded to later). They provide us with choices of when and where to do this and new spaces to share and learn.

Exploring new opportunities for CPD We are now able to be designers of our own learning and development, and technology is providing numerous ways in which we can do this, which enhance the traditional ways in which we may approach CPD. Hardware, that is personal computers and laptops, have become affordable items to own ourselves and are now ubiquitous in the workplace. Mobile technology and smart phones provide many people with access to the internet wherever they go or, at the very least, when in range of the increasingly free wireless zones which are available.

Alongside this is the exponential growth of Web 2.0 tools and social media services, providing a diverse range of opportunities to connect, communicate and collaborate.

The affordances of these are providing opportunities to do so both synchronously

ƐĂŵĞ ƟŵĞ ƐĂŵĞ ƉůĂĐĞ

ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƟŵĞ ƐĂŵĞ ƉůĂĐĞ

,K/ ^ ƐĂŵĞ ƟŵĞ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƉůĂĐĞ

ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƟŵĞ ĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ƉůĂĐĞ

Technology Synchronous tools include webinars, chat tools, instant messaging, virtual worlds and video conferencing. Asynchronous tools include discussion forums, blogging, microblogging, wikis, social bookmarking sites and social network sites. These can be accessed on your PC or laptop and many can also be used on mobile devices. To add to this, the affordances of the mobile phone, for example, now provide the means to both create and view images, video and audio and upload to many of the afore-mentioned spaces. The concept of users as producers means that as individuals we can add a richness to the information we share and the very fact that the process to do this has been simplified means that we no longer need technical expertise to do so. You can now find numerous ‘how to’ videos on YouTube, Vimeo and sites such as Howcast to help you to learn how to use these tools.

Connecting Making connections with others has taken place forever. We make close ties with those with whom we work and are introduced to others through these connections. Outside your immediate peer network, attendance at meetings and internal events provide opportunities to meet others within your institution. However, it is not as easy to meet others outside without going to external conferences, workshops or courses. Online social networks can open up opportunities to develop your connections outside your immediate network.

Examples: LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+ The AUA has a presence on all three. Within LinkedIn you can join the AUA group (find this by using the search box and selecting groups in the drop down menu). Over 700

AUA members are engaging in discussions within this group. The forum provides the space to raise and answer questions, share new ideas and seek feedback, and to meet others who share the same role as yourself.

Join over 900 others who are following @The_AUA on Twitter. By connecting with these people you will find a wealth of information and links to useful information posted as tweets by this growing community.

Communicating It is not always easy to arrange meetings or events at the same time and same place so that everyone can attend. Technology can help to resolve geographical problems by having these online. Webinar tools also come with the means of recording the event, so in the event that someone cannot make the time, they can watch it later.

Examples: Skype, Google+ Hangouts, Webinars Collaborating Web 2.0 tools can provide collaborative working and learning environments. Here the tools enable users to interact and explore ideas. This can be done in real time or at different times. The tools provide a shared space and remove the need to bounce documents back and forth with the worry of version control.

Examples: Google Drive (you may know as Google Docs), Wikis, Blogs, Yammer Overcoming barriers to CPD Time, money and motivation are frequent reasons we put off our own development.

By engaging with the new technologies mentioned, you immediately have access to resources and tools that you can choose to use at a time that suits you; many are free; and through your personal learning network you will find that you’re quickly inspired by the enthusiasm of others. Initially you may be learning from others and then, as you develop new skills, you will find that you become the one helping others.

AUA NEWSLINK 13

Perspectives Overview

perspectives Author: Professor David Law, Editor-in-Chief, Perspectives

The next issue (17.1) of perspectives - Policy and Practice in Higher Education has a very broad appeal to AUA members with interests in strategic planning, change management, the growth of private HE and internationalisation – to just about all of you!

There are four main objectives which AUA pursues by co-publishing perspectives: • to disseminate ideas which enhance the practical aspects of HE management and administration; • to help readers understand the environment in which they operate; • to foster professional debate; • to internationalise our debates.

My first issue as editor brings together a set of excellent papers, clear and brief summaries illustrating the need for policy to be based on evidence (and commitment). Together these pieces will show you how we see the implementation of our objectives.

Hugh Clarke, the interim Deputy Director of Student Services at London Metropolitan University, writes about change management using a practicebased framework of 3Cs (Context, Communication, Commiseration) to structure his study. His concluding advice is: “don’t worry about those staff who turn off and go; worry about those who turn off – and stay.”

Professor Raffe, from the Centre for Educational Sociology at the University of Edinburgh, writes about devolution and UK HE. He urges us to understand that a new “dependence” runs alongside diversity. “England is the elephant in the room of the devolved HE systems.”

Mahsood Shah, from the Office of the DVC at RMIT, considers strategic planning “at a time of uncertainty”. This article, by a practitioner from Australia, illustrates our concern to learn from good practice wherever it is to be found.

John Fielden, from CHEMS Consulting, provides a very informative summary

of ‘private’ HE provision in the UK. He writes: “we have no [exact?] idea of the numbers of students that go to private providers” although after reading this you will have a much better handle on the scale of this provision. Note also that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has just published an important consultation document including data about students funded by the Student Loan Company. Expenditure on students in “alternative providers” now exceeds £100m (the total includes loans for fees and maintenance)!

In perspectives we have a special section, Commentary, that puts debate to the fore. In this issue, David Palfreyman asks about the financial health of the UK sector: “can it really be as good as it seems?”, Palfreyman stresses some threats to the financial future for UK universities: • competition from lower-cost providers; • a falling away of student demand and intake; • global competition and uncertainty (of Volume 17 Num ber 1 2013 special reference to the 18 HEIs that secure more than 15% of income from overseas); ICY ANDhome • static income POL from fees at a time PRACTICE IN HIG HER EDUCATION when inflation steadily erodes surplus.

TPSP 17_1 cover.qxd

2/18/13

1:56 PM

both in outgoing and incoming student mobility of all kinds.

The authors ask whether Europe can maintain its dominant position and conclude that it is unlikely that Europe can do so over the long-term, although they do not believe that the other “powerhouse” of international student mobility, the USA, will take the leading position.

Can I conclude with a plea to readers?

I am sure that there are many readers, AUA members in particular, who have both the scholarly skills and the practical experience needed to write for us. For perspectives – policy and practice in higher education to remain the resource that it became under the guidance of previous editors it will need the support of the readership. I need to know what you value and how you would like to contribute. Please contact me with your ideas: david.law@edgehill.ac.uk.

Page 1

perspect ives CONTENTS

Editorial One, two, three – jump! (. . . into the Third Space?)

David Law Commentary Diversity of provi sion in higher education The role of the private provider John Fielden Commentary Can it really be as good as it seem s?

The financial healt h of the UK HE sector David Palfreyman

Read the article for more on this crucial subject.

perspect ives

POLICY AND PR ACTICE IN HIGHE R EDUCATION

1

4

Finally, our fourth objective is to internationalise our discussion of HE leadership, management and administration. One of the articles in this issue, ‘International Student Mobility – European and US Perspectives’, fits particularly well with this. Professor Hans de Wit, Irina Ferencz and Laura Rumbley are very well placed to be able to offer a succinct empirical and analytic summary, distinguished by interest Perspective

9

Was devolution the beginning of the end of the UK highe r education syste m?

David Raffe

Perspective

International stude nt mobility Europ and US perspective ean s Hans de Wit, Irina Ferencz and Laura E. Rumb ley Perspective Renewing strate gic planning in universities at a time of uncer tainty Mahsood Shah Perspective Context, comm unication and commiseration Psychological and practical consi derations in change manageme nt Hugh Clarke Book review

Volume 17 Num ber 1 2013

11

17

24

IN THIS ISSUE One, Two, Thre e - Jump! (... into the third space?)

Diversity of prov ision in higher education The financial heal th of the UK HE sector Was devolution the beginning of the end of the UK high er education system?

International stud ent mobility Renewing strat egic planning in universities

30

37

ISSN: 1360-3108

14 A A

W

I K

Philanthropy

Gifts in Wills Author: Noreen Muzaffar, External Relations Officer, AUA National Office

A will is one of the most important documents you will create in your lifetime and the one document that everyone should have. By making a will you are ensuring your estate is distributed according to your wishes. If you already have a will but your circumstances have changed it is important that you update it to reflect these changes. Through your will you can ensure that your loved ones are provided for.

If you pass away without a will it will be up to the law to decide how your estate is distributed. Your assets could be shared in ways you never wanted with some family members receiving little or nothing!

After taking care of your loved ones, a small gift to the AUA will help us to give others an opportunity to further develop and promote their careers in administration and management.

Leaving a gift (also known as ‘bequest’ or ‘legacy’) to us in your will is a way you can continue to support the work of the AUA in the future. By remembering AUA in your will, you can help us to go on strengthening the identity of our members within the higher education sector. We have exciting and ambitious plans to become a leader in the professionalisation of higher education by: • Transforming professional practice through development opportunities • Fostering professional engagement with the sector • Championing respect and recognition for the sector and our profession Alternatively if you aren’t quite sure what you want to leave AUA you can make a pledge instead. Pledges are not legally binding documents so you are not committing yourself to anything by making a pledge, if you do however decide to include it in your will please consult your solicitor on how to do this. A pledge to AUA is simply a way of helping us to confidently estimate support for us in the future and help us plan more long term.

Most of us, I suppose, find it difficult to contemplate our mortality, but when you get to my age it is well to have a will, to reduce the possibility of your estate not being disposed of as you would like.

AUA but let’s hope it’s a while before the provisions of my will are put into effect!”

When my wife and I were reviewing our wills last year, I paused to think who could benefit and I thought about the

(Mike has kindly pledged a large collection of books and articles on University Management and Governance)

Mike Miller FA A Longstanding AUA Member

Quest ons nd Ans

ers

Why make a gift in my will to remember the Association of niversity Administrators (A A)?

A gift in your will costs you nothing during your lifetime and won’t affect you now, but will one day make a difference to career and development opportunities of thousands of professionals working in administration and management within higher education.

What types of gifts in wills are there?

There are three different types of gifts in wills (legacies): residuary, pecuniary, and specific.

an I have a say where my gift is used?

Yes, you can tell us what area of our work you would like your gift to support and we will make every effort to see that this happens.

However, it is better if gifts are made unconditionally as it is difficult to know which areas of our work we will need to focus on in future. o I have enough money to leave a gift in my will?

Even a small percentage of your estate will benefit us greatly. No matter the size of the gift- large or small- it is important to us and our work.

1.

esiduary: a % of what is left over once all loved ones, any other beneficiaries have received their inheritance and any other costs have been taken care of.

2. Pecuniary: a gift of an exact amount of money 3. Specific: a gift of a particular asset so for example property, jewellery, etc.

Who shall I make bequests to?

All bequests made to the AUA should be left to Association of University Administrators (AUA), and must use our registered charity numbers 1030024 and SC037890 and the correct registered address: Sackville Street Building, The University of Manchester, Sackville Street, Manchester, M60 1QD AUA Charity number: 1030024

For information visit www.aua.ac.uk/about.aspx

AUA NEWSLINK 15

Annual Awards We had another outstanding field of nominations for our Annual Awards in 2012. The dedication and enthusiasm of our members is both gratifying and inspiring to see.

We want to thank all those who submitted nominations on behalf of other AUA members, and all the members who were the focus of these nominations. Once again the awards were extremely competitive and we could only make one winner in each category. Our 2012 winners are: AUA Ambassador Dr John Hogan, Newcastle University John has been a strong advocate of the AUA for many years. Having been a member since 1993, John was awarded Fellowship of the Association in 2006 for his outstanding commitment to the AUA. John has had a large involvement in the development and governance of the Association, he has for many years been a mentor on the PgCert and still continues to encourage and endorse applications, he has provided funding for many administrative staff to become members and attend events, and has contributed to a wide range of staff development programmes offered by AUA. John is currently Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board.

AUA Newcomer Rachel Saint, University of Kent Rachel has been an active and enthusiastic member of AUA since joining. She has been keen to share her coaching expertise with AUA colleagues and has contributed widely to the AUA Organisation Development Network, presenting a session on Coaching Wheels at the inaugural event in May 2012.

Since joining the AUA she has been careful to ensure that all her training workshops meet the personal behaviours of the AUA CPD framework.

Contribution to Career Development Helena Torres, University of Kent Helena Torres has been recognised for her outstanding work in the CPD pilot as one of the leading members of the small project team working on the University of Kent’s appraisal project. She has been closely involved in the project since its inception in 2010 and has been instrumental in its success to date. Helena has helped the University successful trial an innovative approach to the appraisal system at Kent.

Branch Good Practice University of Kent, University of Ulster and University of Greenwich After years of dormancy, Ulster has been aiming to revitalise the branch and its

activities, and to increase membership. It has been raising awareness of the AUA, its mission and values, and strengthening the branch profile to non-members through events, promotional materials and marketing campaigns.

Since May 2011 the Greenwich AUA Network has developed from a collection of members who were predominantly inactive in AUA engagement, to a Network of increased activity and participation.

Greenwich members have been promoting the Association by increasing communication across the branch, forming teams, working with internal partners, using the CPD framework in a new institutional project and working with neighbouring branches (Kent and Canterbury Christ Church) through CPD activity, events and presentations.

At the start of 2012, AUA members at University of Kent formed a group with the aim of providing a forum for local discussion, developing strategy, promoting the AUA and disseminating good practice. Several activities were held to raise the profile of the AUA, a CPD Framework pilot project has been undertaken, members have presented at various network and national events, and several AUA members have started studying on the PgCert programme.

Annual Awards 2013 So much of the AUA’s success is down to the dedication, hard work and enthusiasm of our members. Without you we wouldn’t be able to provide training support, develop resources or grow our membership. We want to recognise the commitment you make to our Association with our Annual Awards.

Now in its third year, the Annual Awards just keeps on growing with more applicants and new categories added each year. Our 2013 Annual Awards will be held at Development Conference and Annual Lecture, to be held in October in Birmingham.

AUA Ambassador This award aims to recognise an outstanding contribution to the development, growth or raising the profile of our Association.

AUA Newcomer This award aims to celebrate the exceptional initiative in getting involved in the AUA, shown by an AUA member who joined on or after 1 August 2012.

Administrator Award As well as recognising the commitment to our Association, we want to recognise the wider overall improvement of higher education administration. The award is designed to acknowledge the sustained or exceptional service of an AUA member to the administration or management of their institution, over and above what is normally expected within their role.

Contribution to Career Development This award aims to recognise the AUA member who has either: • Made a sustained contribution to the development of others, or • Used the AUA’s activities, services, tools and resources to enhance their own career.

Innovative Involvement Time to get creative! We love new ideas here at the AUA and this award aims to reward the person or team who can show the most innovative or creative way in which they have been involved with or raised the profile of our Association.

AUA Fundraiser Brand new for 2013, this award celebrates the charitable side of our Association.

This award is designed to recognise the achievement of a person or team who has successfully fundraised for the AUA, either through innovative methods or increasing charitable giving.

Network Good Practice For the first time, we’ve expanded our long-standing Branch Awards to include all our Networks. Whether you’re part of a network at one institution, spread across your whole city, as part of your overall geographical network or as part of one of the national themed networks, if you think your network deserves to be recognised for your achievements then this award is for you. Our only non-competitive award, the Network Good Practice Award rewards the contribution made by your network to our Association.

More information on all of the awards, as well as the application form, can be found on the website at www.aua.ac.uk/news-60Annual-Awards-2013.html.

16 AUA NEWSLINK

Professional Development

Joan Balchin Memorial Awards Applications are invited from university administrators and senior clerical staff for awards from the Joan Balchin Memorial Travel Fund. The awards are tenable either in the UK or overseas and may be held concurrently with other awards or income.

The awards are intended to further the education and training of administrators, with particular emphasis on assisting with their travel expenses in achieving this aim. One or more of the awards may be made each year and the value will be determined in the light of the plans of each successful candidate and of any other financial assistance that may be available. Grants are not intended to defray the whole costs.

Consideration may also be given to the award of a limited number of smaller grants towards costs of conference and accommodation expenses where these are exceptionally high.

details of proposed travel arrangements.

Copies of the Regulations of the Fund are available from Sue Edwards at The University of Leeds, s.w.edwards@ adm.leeds.ac.uk.

Applicants, who must be eligible for membership of AUA, should submit detailed proposals indicating how their education and training will be developed as a result of activities undertaken with the aid of this award and including

Ideally, completed applications should be received by Sue Edwards before the end of April 2013, although it might be possible to consider late submissions if funds permit.

We will be at the Edinburgh AUA Conference in March After dinner photography studio available

win

a bottle of champagne

GUESS

FAMOUS FACES THE

COMPETITION

AUA NEWSLINK 17

Professional Development

Joan Balchin Memorial Travel Award Author: Mildred Asmah, Institute of Education, University of Cape Coast

In 2011, Mildred Asmah from the University of Cape Coast Institute of Education received a Joan Balchin Memorial Travel Award to help fund her attendance at a three week Executive Short Course in Strategic Management at the Maastricht School of Management held in January 2012.

Introduction I stayed at the Apart Hotel Randwyck, which is owned by the Maastricht School of Management and houses most students during short courses. There were participants from Uganda, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Eritrea, Ghana and Georgia all of whom were senior level managers in various public, private and nongovernmental establishments.

Courses offered Strategic Performance Management was offered to provide a general view on what strategy is, how it is formulated and the five central factors for managing strategic change - namely coherence, environmental assessment, human resources as assets and liabilities, leading change and linking strategic and operational change.

Performance deviation and maneuverability of organizations were also introduced to establish the fact that management is in need of new ‘flight controls’ that is how to control an organization when it is unstable and in a permanent state of misfit.

Implementing a performance management system was given as a group assignment to two groups.

Leadership was a course offered from the situational leadership theory perspective.

The fundamental underpinning of this theory is that there is no single ‘best’ style of leadership. It underscored the fact that effective leadership is task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the maturity of the individual or group they are attempting to lead or influence.

Change Management was tackled from the angle that it was equivalent to managing resistance to change. We were asked to identify what creates value in our organizations. Four fields of attention were determined in the management of change, further development (add to), fundamental change (new position) fundamental

change (crises) and imposed legislation (new rules/processes).Two case studies were introduced. Development stages in organizations was a course offered to examine the history and stages of growth of the toothbrush industry in Europe, its successes, failures and best practices.

Innovation balance scorecard was a course taught to provide a balanced approach towards formulating and evaluating organizational strategy as part of the planning process. It considered the corporate vision, what clear strategy fits the vision, the financial objectives of the strategy and how organizations should learn and grow to succeed. The balance scorecard covered four categories, namely financials, customer focus, internal processes and learning and growth.

To succeed one ought to look at its shareholders, to achieve the strategy one must look at its customers, understanding the information flow in internal processes and how an organization must learn and improve became crucial.

Presentation Skills was taught to help us prepare for a presentation in respect of the structure and the presentation itself.

We rehearsed our presentations and were made aware of problems in presenting and how to deal with questions.

Course Delivery The courses were delivered by experts in consultancy and academia. The moodle learning mode (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) was used in a way that all reading materials and case studies were online after every lecture. Lecturers were drawn from various universities and industry within the Netherlands. Course delivery was mainly participatory. As adult learners, case studies and lectures were used in two groups and there were role plays to discuss ways of behaving strategically and moving strategic planning to strategic intelligence.

The strategic concepts and tools were used and an example of a case on organizational strategy in one department at the University of Cape Coast was discussed as a selected case. The strategic analysis led to the determination of organizational questions by the group which may be useful for my institution during its strategic implementation exercise. All topics were linked together, as strategy was perceived as a plan, a ploy, a position and a perspective. There were two work visits, one assignment study day and an assignment presentation day for the two groups on the last day.

Observations The implication of strategy in institutions was underscored. A scorecard for innovation which many organizations in Europe currently use, was introduced.

Change management and issues that make organizations maneuverable was highlighted. The class had a high level of cohesion and all members were good team players. Participants worked on two projects which when followed could be useful for the establishments selected.

Recommendations This form of knowledge sharing and exchange may help my own institution incorporate best practice in our day-to-day administration, in order to compete not just locally but also globally with other reputable institutions.

Conclusion I wish to thank the University of Leeds (Joan Balchin Memorial Award), the University of Cape Coast and the Maastricht School of Management for making my professional development possible. The programme was very stimulating and I hope that my colleagues will also be given the same opportunity to be enlightened intellectually.

18 AUA NEWSLINK

Feature Article

University Administration since 1974: a Personal Perspective Author: David McParlin, ex-Academic Secretary at Aberystwyth University

As a recently retired, longstanding member of AUA, I would like to acknowledge the benefits of CUA/AUA membership that I have received over almost 40 years in HE, and at the same time to look back on the major developments in universities over that period.

Most importantly, conference sessions and discussions with fellow administrators have helped to bring home the fact that we have all been facing the same major issues across the sector in a period of immense change, while at the same time helping members to make lifelong friends from other universities.

The focus of the Association in the early days was the annual conference, run largely by enthusiastic volunteers from across the sector. Fees were kept remarkably low for many years as a result. The first conference that I attended was in Leeds in the mid1970s. The overwhelming impression in those days was of a male-dominated profession, with a male:female ratio of perhaps 3:1. Since then I’ve been lucky enough to attend more than 20 conferences over the years and seen the gender balance change completely while numbers attending have increased dramatically. Some sessions have been outstanding, some less so, but they have all helped in focusing on the major issues of the day and assisted in HE development not only in the UK but also, judging from the number of overseas attendees, abroad.

Amongst all the serious moments (and with apologies to those who recognise themselves), I have fond memories of: • At Liverpool, the outstanding session on university mergers delivered at 9.15am by someone who was seemingly comatose at 6.30 according to colleagues from Wales who had emptied a bottle of Bushmills with him in the early morning.

• At Cardiff, the smooth, silver-suited American giving a talk on student records, whose air of super efficiency was shattered when he realised that the slides in his carousel had been inserted upside down. He continued as if nothing was amiss…

• At Cambridge, where conference fees first broke the £100 barrier.

• At the first Belfast conference, my own embarrassment at realising that the quaint ‘tyrolean’ building I’d been attentively

studying in the pitch dark was in fact an army observation post opposite the halls complex.

• At Durham, the Time Management session cancelled because the main speaker had missed the train.

• At Sussex, the rows of flattened trees above the campus, following the Great Storm of 1987.

• At Exeter, working my schedule around the number of times I would have to climb Cardiac Hill.

My appointment in 1974 coincided with the abandonment of the then UGC’s Quinquennial Funding system (imagine that, getting a clear idea of your government funding for the next five years!). In retrospect, the UGC before then could be seen as operating on the principle of benevolent paternalism, with universities operating on student:staff ratios of 10:1 or below and new universities being created throughout the 1960s. Indeed, departments with a ratio of 3:1 were claiming to be hard-pressed to the limit of their endurance and would seriously expect additional resources to come their way. Thereafter, as inflation continued to rise across the UK, the first series of cuts (comparatively minor considering what was to come later) hit university funding after many years of steady expansion. The election of the Thatcher government in 1979 was greeted with some relief in HE circles where there was hope that at long last we could get back to sensible funding for HE after the reductions of the previous years. How wrong we were! The request for universities to prepare plans on the basis of cuts of 5% or 10% was received with some incredulity in many parts of the sector and the shock of a 10% cut across the sector, much more in several HEIs, was palpable when it was announced.

This led to a major realignment in many universities, with some subject rationalisation, and a centrally funded premature retirement scheme. In addition, home student numbers were strictly capped

throughout the 1980s to protect the unit of resource, with draconian fines for those who exceeded them. Not very different from the current state of affairs then. Discussions on the HE participation rate were very far down the agenda.

The Jarrett Report of the mid 1980s led to a major re-structuring of the way that universities ran themselves, with a drastic reduction in the number of committees.

Resource allocation on the basis of agreed measures of student recruitment and research performance (as opposed to planning by who shouted loudest and longest at committees) also became the norm.

Separate funding for research was introduced in the late 1980s after the first RAE, which had the double effect of justifying what had been the higher funding per student in universities, while beginning the process of research selectivity to protect the funding of elite universities.

Before the Reynolds Report of the late 1980s, if an administrator had mentioned teaching quality to most university academics they would have looked at you blankly and queried your impertinence; that was something that was needed only in those less academically respectable institutions and certainly nothing to do with the central administration. Since then a whole quality industry has grown up in the UK, mostly to the benefit of students, but not always without some unintended consequences for the sector.

In the early 1990s, the MAC Initiative came and went, largely without achieving its ambitious target of standardising administrative computing systems. We have since modularised our courses, semesterised our teaching year and even taken the decision, unconscionable in the early days, to let students know their actual marks. We have defined learning outcomes, articulated skills, and defined graduate attributes. We have adapted our governance structures

AUA NEWSLINK 19

to a new streamlined business-orientated model and dealt with the implications of legislation affecting widening access, equal opportunities, race equality, health and safety and information management. And in Wales we established our own regulatory frameworks following the implosion of the University of Wales. The UGC morphed into the UFC and then HEFCE, HEFCW and SHEFC, each becoming more interventional over time. In the early days, we might expect four or five contacts from the UGC each year and the occasional Visitation. This has grown to more than 60 from HEFCW (admittedly down from the 100 or so circulars that they sent out not too long ago).

Student funding has moved from one based on grants determined by parental income, and minimal fees (£60 per year in 1974), mostly covered for all except those on ‘minimum grants’. When loans were first introduced in the early 1990s, it was with the assurance that they would never increase above 50% of the total student support package. Since then loans and bursaries have become the norm while fees have increased inexorably outside Scotland, from the £1,000 of 1997, to £3,000 and on to a maximum of £9,000 today in England. Until the early 1990s students graduated with no public debt. Since then, the steady expansion of student numbers to the 45% participation rate that we see today has long made that position unaffordable.

In recent years too universities have been encouraged to develop Strategic Plans and individual strategies for a host of their activities: learning and teaching, estates, widening participation, student employability, HR, student engagement, quality enhancement amongst others, each with targets, milestones, and monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Indeed, it seems the only one missing is the Strategy Strategy, if only to keep a track of them all!

We’ve had to cope with the proliferation of acronyms: UGC has become UFC and then HEFCE/ HEFCW/SHEFC; USR has changed to HESA, and UCCA to UCAS; QAA has grown from AAU, TQA and HEQC and has given us HEQF. We have EYM and HESES, NSS, KISS and HERA, the OIA and CATS, RAE and REF, TRAC, HERA and TUPE, and (in Wales) CQFW and WISE. The list goes on.

Now that I have retired it is with much relief that the only acronym I have to bother myself with is USS. I think I can just about manage that.

Alison Johns FAUA short-listed for most Inspiring Leader It should come as no surprise to our Associatio that our very own President, Alison Johns FAUA was short-listed for the very first Guardian University Award for Inspiring Leader.

This award is designed to “recognise an individual who has demonstrated inspirational leadership, vision, and new approaches to working and engagement.”

With a short-list of 8 individuals representing some of the sectors most innovative and inspiring leaders and managers, this is sure to be a hotly contested award.

Alison is the Head of Leadership, Governance and Management at HEFCE. She has been a passionate supporter of the AUA for many years and has served as Chair and now President among her many roles with us. In 2010 Alison became only the second ever AUA President and was awarded Honorary Fellowship of the Association following this appointment. Alison has long advocated the importance of professional development for administrative and managerial staff in higher education. In particular Alison has been a huge campaigner for the AUA’s postgraduate certificate in higher education and the mentoring programme which supports this. Alison herself has been a mentor and continues to support the programme.

Anyone who knows Alison, well or not, will speak of her warmth, her engaging and inspiring manner and the passion and motivation she has for her role and the higher education sector. We’re delighted that such a close ally of the AUA was short- listed for this award.

The results of the vote were announced on 27 February 2013 and unfortunately Alison just missed out to winner Bob Cryan, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Huddersfield. Congratulations to Bob on his achievement.

20 A A

W

I K

Feature Article

Fair Admissions in 2013 and Beyond Author: Janet Graham MAUA, Director of SPA, the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions Programme, also convenes the AUA-SPA Applicant Experience Network

The plenary debate title at the AUA conference in March 2013, ‘Higher Education could benefit from social engineering’ compels me to respond and highlight that widening inclusion is not about social engineering and the media hype that often accompanies debate on this topic, but about outreach, fair admissions and access.

As the independent UK-wide organisation working to promote fair admissions, SPA, the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions Programme, with Universities UK, held a conference to discuss this issue in June 2012. This provided a great opportunity to debate, in a measured way, headline issues and to explore the research evidence and views across the education sector. This topic is probably the most sensitive of all those in admissions; like all hotly contested issues, some of the hard facts have been lost in the debate and certain myths allowed to gain currency.

We can easily see why this issue continues to generate interest, with the UK administrations, funders and agencies encouraging institutions to consider using contextual information in admissions, eg in OFFA Access Agreements or as highlighted in Alan Milburn’s report ‘University Challenge: How Higher Education can advance social mobility’ in October 2012.

In 2004 Professor Schwartz produced the Fair Admissions to Higher Education report, outlining a number of principles to help universities to deliver fair admissions, that is ensuring:

‘Equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless of background, to gain admission to a course suited to their ability and aspirations’.

In 2012 SPA’s task and finish group looked again at these principles; the final briefing highlighted that despite challenges in the more competitive HE landscape, the principles of fair admissions continue to underpin how universities operate.

SPA defines contextual data as information that sets applicants’ attainment and qualifications in the context in which they have been achieved, mainly the

educational, socio-economic or geodemographic context. Universities using contextual data do so to aid the identification of a broader pool of potential students who could have the opportunity to succeed in HE.

• 850 of 1,600 pupils taking GCSEs at just eight top performing schools achieved five or more A* grades or better, whereas it took 250,000 taking GCSEs at 1,900 poorer-performing schools to match that 850 gaining five or more A* grades.

The latest SPA survey on contextual data usage across the HE sector showed 57% of respondents planned to use contextual data in the future, with more than half using it across all courses. All areas of contextual data usage showed increases: first was when considering borderline students at results time for Confirmation; despite the media often focussing on lower offers being made using contextual information, this was only fifth.

• And, at A-level, the percentage of examinations receiving grades A*, A, or B for 16-18 year-olds by type of institution in England are: • Further education college 45% • State school/college 49% • Independent school/college 76%.

Institutions consider a wide range of information eg whether the applicant had been in local authority care or involved in any outreach or widening participation activity. Other data includes Polar 2 neighbourhoods with low progression to HE, and 11-16 and post-16 school/college performance.

Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter, stated that the crux of the case for considering contextual data is that the degree potential of students from under-represented groups might be under-represented by their endof-school/college academic grades. Unless this is taken into account by admissions staff, the profile of those admitted to HE would not be a fair reflection of those with the academic potential to succeed at their institutions.

Socio-economic differences in university progression are underpinned by educational inequalities, and school/college performance is a key issue. Statistics from DfE performance data (2010-11), in English schools highlight:

In light of the debate, it is essential that institutions have a clear rationale for using contextual data, and their own evidence base to inform decisions. SPA will add to the national evidence base, including around the relative performance of students, whether contextual factors have been taken into account or not. We must also understand the reasons for the differences in the published studies and in institutional research. SPA is currently tendering for more detailed research to assess this evidence base. As Tessa Stone of the Bridge Group highlighted at our conference, the contextual data debates are not about students or the applicant experience, but about politics. This has no significance for prospective students.

Applicants want to understand what’s on offer, make well informed and appropriate choices. The HE sector wants this too and wants fair admissions; it has a responsibility to ensure that how and when contextual data is used is transparent to applicants and their advisers.

Although universities may continue to be criticised for social engineering, the important point is that applicants may lose out while the debate rumbles on. And noone wants that.

AUA NEWSLINK 21

Professional Development

Student At Large Author: Jack Sugrue, Studying for MBBS Medicine, St George’s, University of London

I sometimes think that working as a HE administrator must be a bit like being a football referee. When you have a good day at the office nobody ever says a word or sings your praises, but as soon as something goes wrong everybody is talking about it!

I am sure many of you have to act as referee’s part of the time, reminding students (gently of course!) of the rules and regulations and the expectations that the University has of them. But I hope as a whole we aren’t that unruly a bunch. As a graduate entry medical student I have had the pleasure of interacting with HE administrators through two application processes, whilst studying on two different courses and also as a colleague, during my year as the sabbatical Students’ Union President at St George’s, University of London. My year in office, working on a daily basis with University staff from all departments, opened my eyes to the real work that goes on behind the scenes to provide the world class education that I have experienced at St George’s, and that is delivered throughout the UK. All too often administrative staff can be seen as just the name on the end of the email or the person who you hand your forms to at the end of term. So the question I hear you ask is, “can we do anything about this?”

A major part of my training towards becoming a doctor is focussed on ‘communication skills’. There is a statistic banded around that 80% of medical diagnoses can be made on taking a patient’s history alone, and it is a stat that far older and wiser consultants keep on telling me, so there must be at least an element of truth in it somewhere. At St George’s the emphasis on good communication permeates all departments and I believe is one of the main reasons that staff and students here have such a good working relationship. I think most people, particularly when starting at a new university, are quite shy about approaching staff members for

Universities are constantly asking for student feedback in various different forms; online surveys, focus groups, open forums, questionnaires and drop-in sessions to name but a few. Students really want to see that the feedback is being used, and a clear and open environment where areas of good and bad practice can be discussed is key to ensuring improvements are made. help or advice, creating an open and welcoming environment goes a long way to allaying a student’s fears or concerns. I certainly remember my first day at university and really appreciated being introduced face-to-face to some of the administrative staff that I would be interacting with on a regular basis.

The vast majority of HE administrative staff I worked with had a passion for higher education and a real commitment to ensuring that the students receive the best experience possible. I can imagine that this enthusiasm may be difficult to maintain with greater pressures on departmental budgets and the never ending clamour to attract greater numbers of students, without necessarily getting’ an equal increase in staff support or remuneration and the insatiable appetite of university provosts to tick all the National Student Survey (NSS) boxes. You may be surprised to hear that not all students think the NSS is the greatest survey in the world!

Consistently students express dissatisfaction with feedback.

Universities are constantly asking for student feedback in various different forms; online surveys, focus groups, open forums, questionnaires and drop-in sessions to name but a few. There is an element of feedback overload, which can lead to apathy amongst

the student population, causing the feedback itself to lose validity. Students really want to see that the feedback is being used, and a clear and open environment where areas of good and bad practice can be discussed is key to ensuring improvements are made.

All in all, although we may not admit to it all the time, us students know that HE administrators are vital in delivering key aspects of our education and training, and for this we really are thankful.

You never know, if you swing by your students’ union bar one evening you may get a drink bought for you! I’d probably avoid sports night though, some things are best left to the imagination.

22 AUA NEWSLINK

A Level-Playing Field for the AUB Author: Jon Renyard MAUA, Director of Academic Services, The Arts University Bournemouth

The Arts University Bournemouth was born in December 2012, when the Privy Council formally approved the change of name. This followed the Government’s decision to lower the student number threshold for University title to 1000 students, opening the way for ten University Colleges to apply. But we’re not Johnny-come-latelys; my institution has been in existence since 1885. So what’s in a name? What difference will University title make to us?

But before I comment on that, I’ld like to debunk a myth about the awarding of University status. The ten new universities have not sprung up from nowhere. They all hold degree awarding powers, and if anyone is uncertain about the rigour of that process, then imagine a panel of three senior academics visiting your institution for a year or more, poring over documents and attending any meetings they wish – from Course Boards to Standards Committee via Exam Boards – to ensure that they are operating in line with expectations.

Securing taught degree awarding powers means you can demonstrate the security of your awards, and that’s a pre-requisite for University title. In comparison, IRENI is a cakewalk! All ten of us remain subject to QAA reviews and HEFCE monitoring of our governance arrangements; and none of us are forprofit institutions. There is no risk to the reputation of UK Higher Education from this change.

There are, however, important implications for the institutions concerned. I think that there are probably three, apart from the inevitable need to change every reference on the website, in external and internal documentation, on signage, and anywhere else we can think of.

The first implication is simply clarity, and the avoidance of confusion. It’s not just that people outside higher education don’t know what a University College is – most people within higher education don’t know either. The Arts University Bournemouth is required to do everything that larger universities have to do, to meet the same reporting requirements and work to the same rules.

University title removes this implication of difference, so poorly understood across the sector and beyond.

University title will also make a significant difference in terms of international marketing and promotion. In fact, we recruit quite strongly internationally, with over 10% of the student body being from outside the EU, but there is no doubt that full University title will provide a stronger presence in the overseas market. Confirmation of our status for prospective students is invaluable, especially at a time when this market becomes increasingly contested.

But the third and most important benefit, without a doubt, is the validation of the institution which University title brings. The Arts University Bournemouth is a high quality institution which was recently rated the Number One creative institution by the Which? University website (in conjunction with NUS). We have

excellent student satisfaction, and superb graduate employment rates (97.7% in the last DLHE survey). We have more undergraduate courses accredited by Creative Skillset than any other institution. Despite this outstanding record of achievement, we have not hitherto always been included in lists of universities, not included in many league tables, not eligible to join certain groups, or participate fully in conversations. There was no obvious logic to the number criterion – why 4,000 instead of 6,000, or 2,500? The new rule ensures that the much-vaunted “level playing field” applies across the publicly-funded higher education sector, and removes any implication that this university is somehow different, or lesser, through the addition of the word “College”. Both at home and abroad, we are now able to engage fully, subject to the same treatment as any other university. Our students have always thought, and said, that they “go to Uni”, and now the name reflects the facts on the ground.

Of course, this is not without its challenges. Being a full university exposes us to some scrutiny we may not previously have faced – being included in league tables, for instance, could be very much a double-edged sword, with the benefits of recognition potentially undermined if performance does not match up. So University title also means that we need to sharpen up our game.

The great thing is that becoming the Arts University Bournemouth gives everyone a boost, a shot of self-confidence, as we set out on this journey. We know our own strengths, and our worth; and now this public confirmation of our status means that everyone else is aware of them, too!

AUA NEWSLINK 23

Comparison of the Australian and UK HE systems

Nothing New Under the (Australian) Sun Author: Jon Baldwin, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Murdoch University, Australia Governments around the world are targeting higher education as a key foundation for building a knowledge economy. Many of the policy instruments used are similar as governments grapple with the balance between increased university enrolments and expanding research and the cost that entails.

However, policy implementation reflects local cultural, social and economic history as a comparison of the UK and Australian experiences shows.

The Australian experience was strongly affected by the Dawkins reforms in the late 1980s. Institutes of technology and colleges of advanced education amalgamated or merged with small universities creating a raft of new universities, many of which featured in the recent Times’ ranking of the 100 best universities under the age of 50. Student fees were introduced, underpinned by an income contingent loans system. A funding shortfall has grown over the last 30 years as a result of the lower indexation of student funding relative to the growth in costs. Finally, Australian universities were early and active participants in the international student market to the point where education is the nation’s third largest export earner. In this context, Australia’s university sector is therefore relatively homogeneous.

In December 2008 the Final Report of the Review of Australian Higher Education, the Bradley Review, was released. It recommended targets for attainment and participation as well as student centred funding, research funding more closely aligned to costs and a new regulatory framework.

The Government has a strong commitment to education as a tool to increase social mobility. To that end, it set an attainment target of 40% of all 25 to 34 year olds to hold a degree or above by 2025 together with participation by people from low socioeconomic status backgrounds at 20% of all enrolments by 2020. Strong growth in enrolments nationally has been driven by a demand driven system , under which the Commonwealth Government provides its funding contribution for every domestic

student enrolled in an undergraduate course.

Innovation has been a second focus, with support for research increasing around 35 per cent since 2007. The first round of ERA, Excellence in Research for Australia, was conducted in 2010. The ERA measures publicly funded research against our peers around the world, and influences future research investment. As Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr said, “The ERA model will provide hard evidence that taxpayers are getting the best bang for their buck in this critical area”.

Similar policies have been implemented in the UK at different stages over the last few decades. For example the RAE, Research Assessment Exercise, conducted most recently in the UK in 2008, provided the framework for ERA; while Australia’s Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) was picked up in structuring loans administered through the Student Loans Company. The differences in policy settings tell us much about the political ideology of the incumbent governments.

Different models have been put in place to fund student enrolments. Broadly speaking the UK has capped places and ‘deregulated’ fees while the Australian solution has been to open places while retaining the cap on fees - reflecting the priority given to social mobility. This has seen enrolments and therefore the cost to the government of undergraduate places rise rapidly in Australia, which has meant a slowing of research investment. The huge increase in fees has seen a drop in demand for university in the UK and evidence emerging of an outward flow of academically strong students to elite US institutions.

Widening Participation remains a strong element of the UK system, with universities required to submit an Access Agreement indicating the activities universities will implement in order to reach a specified level of students from WP backgrounds.

However, there is little or no funding to support outreach to primary and secondary students. In the Australian context, universities are set Low SES targets that

require similar outreach activities but a competitive funding pool is available through the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program.

The partial deregulation of undergraduate study has seen governments demand greater ‘transparency’ of universities.

MyUniversity (Australia) and KIS (Key Information Sets-UK) provide datasets that aim to help students in decision making around the best institution for their needs.

There is not yet clear evidence that the information provided is used by students but the emphasis on inputs to education rather than outcomes remains problematic.

The unprecedented growth of higher education arising from upward social and economic mobility and overall economic growth from the 1960s to today has raised and will continue to raise questions over quality. To that end, both the UK and Australia have increased regulation of the sector. HEFCE has taken on a role as lead regulator for the UK sector, while Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is a new national regulatory and quality assurance agency.

The use of core datasets, and associated league tables, and a strong regulatory framework have led to concerns about the possible homogenisation of higher education in both the UK and Australia.

Mechanisms to encourage diversity within this context are being considered by universities and will emerge in coming years.

In the UK and Australia there remains a strong push for universities to implement elements of the government’s policy agenda but without additional funding. This is unsustainable and will advance moves by institutions to diversify their income sources to reduce reliance on government funding.

The strength and robustness of the university sector in Australia and the UK are important as our nations push towards a more service-driven, knowledgebased economy, and will underpin future economic growth.

24 AUA NEWSLINK

The need for change in the HE sector Author: Paul Kirkham, Managing Director, The Institute of Contemporary Music Performance

I’m sure that few would deny that the provision of higher education (HE) in the United Kingdom is undergoing a period of significant change.

While it is natural for many to actively resist that change - or worse, espouse the need for change while seeking to protect the status quo, the circumstances of recent years have left the sector with few options. With the new system of student financing designed to switch the cost burden from society as a whole to those who (in theory at least) benefit most from the investment – the students themselves - it is natural that those students should begin to question what they are getting for their money.

For the first time, price is a visible element of the provider’s marketing ‘mix’, included in the range of factors to be considered by a potential student.

That it has taken this long for such a thing to happen is astonishing for those of us who have experienced the challenges of providing products and services in the real world. Imagine, for example, that you were buying a new car and could walk into any showroom anywhere in the country and choose your new vehicle based on all the desirable attributes – engine size, styling, comfort, sound system, speed – without having to worry about how much it actually costs as the taxpayer will foot the bill.

This is effectively how the HE sector has been operating for decades, with the ‘academy’ taking the moral high ground of contributing to the public good with few questions asked about the real costs to the public purse. It is therefore not surprising that the sector has become somewhat detached from reality.

The current Government has acknowledged the need for new methods of delivery. It has recognised that ‘many of the most encouraging developments [in British HE] have come in new and transformed institutions’, for example1. They have made clear they wish to ‘focus on a greater diversity of models of learning’2 and ‘give priority to growing a diverse range of models of [HE delivery]3. Lord Browne stated as a principal benefit of his proposed reforms that ‘HEI’s [should] actively compete…on the basis of price and teaching quality…’4; an interesting and novel concept indeed.

David Willetts has made clear that he is seeking a ‘simpler, more flexible system which gives students better value and greater choice’5, and that the ‘most powerful driver of reform is to let new providers into the system’6. Well of course it is – surely history has taught us that competition, and indeed the profit motive, when allowed to flourish under a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework, is the best way to advance human knowledge, human capital and human well-being. To continue to make the case for a closed cartel of higher education providers for whom cost is not a consideration is absurd. Continuing to allow publicly-funded universities to monopolise the sector will stifle innovation and progress, is poor use of taxpayer funds and cannot possibly be in the best interests of students themselves.

I have mentioned the profit motive, that concept which in almost every other sector is considered to be a fundamental driver of innovation and change and yet which, in the UK’s education sector, is considered to be the worst of all evils.

Profit is bad - end of story - and an array of vested interests is lined up ready to pounce on any actual or perceived disagreement with this principle. In UK HE the Berlin Wall still stands, Marx has been vindicated and the rules of competition applicable everywhere else do not apply. However has any university Vice-Chancellor, comfortable with a substantial six-figure salary plus a benefits package that would make many corporate leaders jealous, invested his or her own money in their institution?

Shareholders have the bravery, the belief and the commitment to make investments and take risk and they should be rewarded for that.

We should be concerned by the current imbalance in the debate about HE providers and we should retain a healthy scepticism about the motives behind the intervention of various vested interests and the way reality is being portrayed.

Any organisation, if unchecked, can find ways to abuse the system or become

deficient in their provision, regardless of their legal structure. Recent examples of such deficiencies can be found in both private and public providers, but these aberrations should not be taken as generalisations for the sector as a whole.

Ultimately, however, the debate should not be about how various stakeholder groups are rewarded by providers of education – it should be about balancing the quality of provision with costs to the student and, where state subsidies are involved, delivering value for money for the taxpayer. The vast majority of private institutions in the UK are charging fees below £6,000 per annum, almost 30% below the national average.

Many ( like my own) offer fully and properly validated degrees with high staff/student ratios and contact teaching time, a specialist teaching faculty, excellent industry connections and training opportunities and fit-for-purpose facilities. We are subject, like universities, to a wide range of statutory quality and other audits; we must be licensed

by UKBA for international students and unless we have awarding powers of our own, we are obliged to maintain at least the same standards as our validating partner.

The UK HE sector is in need of reform.

The solution can only be a ‘mixed economy’ of providers, traditional and non-traditional, for-profit and not-forprofit, responding to student needs and the changing world, focusing on fields of excellence instead of trying to do a bit of everything. The sector should be subject to a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework, able to distinguish between and adjust for different delivery models, to protect the consumer (i.e. the student) interest.

This mixed delivery model will bring value to all stakeholders in a market-oriented, efficient manner. Importantly, the mix of provision will serve to keep sector costs under control, with real competition driving true innovation and the mix of profit, public funding and private finance initiatives serving to provide real choice and widening access to students.

AUA NEWSLINK 25

Strong university brands have little to fear from private competitors; they will continue to grow and will be able to charge fees commensurate with their reputations and the value they can actually add for students. It will not, however, be a bad thing if, as a result of the current round of changes, we see a number of universities go out of business, be downsized or be taken over.

Innovation and progress is made through a process of success and failure, and we often learn more from failure than we do from success. That no state-funded university has been allowed to fail so far should be cause for concern.

References: 1. BIS ‘Higher Ambitions’ document, November 2009 2. Ibid 3. Ibid 4. Securing a sustainable future for Higher Education (‘the Browne Report’), October 2010 5. Speech to Universities UK Spring Conference, February 2011 6. Ibid About Paul Kirkham: Paul Kirkham is owner and Managing Director at the Institute of Contemporary Music Performance, a leading school for students of popular music, located in London. He acquired the Institute in 2003 following a 15-year career as a senior business executive, during which time he managed large and complex companies all over the world.

In recent years, Paul has been directing and managing a major programme of investment and development which has seen the organisation more than triple in size. The Institute enrolled over 800 full-time students in the 2012/13 academic year and has a reputation built on providing world class education and training using the very best teachers and state-of-the-art facilities.

Courses offered include a Masters Degree, Degrees in Popular Music Performance, Creative Musicianship, Songwriting and Music Business, a range of Cert HE courses, a fully-funded 1-year Diploma, a specialist 1-year Higher Diploma, plus a wide portfolio of parttime courses designed to meet a variety of training needs for guitarists, bass players, drummers, vocalists, songwriters and aspiring music business executives and entrepreneurs.

AUA Events Annual Conference and Exhibition Date:

25 – 27 March 2013

Venue: Edinburgh International Conference Centre Location: Edinburgh Our Annual Conference and Exhibition is our most eagerly awaited event, which attracts over 700 delegates working in the Higher Education sector all over the UK and overseas.

Our annual conference is the largest of its kind in the UK, offering a wide range of workshop sessions, keynote presentations and exhibitions for all delegates to benefit from, develop new skills, and experience the full diversity of the profession.

With plenary speakers ranging from Terry Waite CBE sharing his experiences of stress and negotiating under severe pressure, to Shabana Mahmood MP who will discuss how she sees higher education developing in the future, there is sure to be something everyone can enjoy.

This year’s annual conference is being held at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, located right in the heart of the cultural, stylish and exciting city of Edinburgh, you might even be able to sneak in some sight-seeing so don’t miss out and be sure to secure yourself a place.

Student Complaints and Appeals Date:

June 2013

Venue: The Pentahotel Location: Reading A joint event with the ARC Student Complaints and Appeals Practitioner Group this new event will bring together leading experts in this field to discuss and debate current issues.

The Pentahotel is the newest hotel in Reading, who pride themselves on providing a relaxed and personal service whilst still maintaining their high standards and professionalism.

The conference centre is packed full of character for a new building, to ensure you can enjoy your surroundings that represent the historical city of Reading.

Midlands Conference Innovative Practice to Support the Student Experience Date:

27 June 2013

Venue: The University of Birmingham Location: Birmingham A one day conference focussing on the impact of the new fee structure on the student experience and the fall-out from the White Paper ‘Students at the Heart of the System’. What is the word on the ground? What are the repercussions?

Are there winners and losers? Bringing together a range of speakers with a focus on case studies and practice, this event will also encourage professional networking, and the development of skills. The conference is open to all AUA members and non-members, but those from institutions in the East and West Midlands and those with an interest in the student experience are particularly encouraged to attend.

Managing Change in Higher Education Open Forum Date:

5 July 2013

Venue: London Metropolitan University Location: London The Managing Change in HE (MCHE) themed network is hosting its fourth Annual Open Forum for AUA members and non-members interested in improving practice on managing change in higher education. There will be an opportunity to share good and bad practice, network and consider how to work more collaboratively. Colleagues will be able to consider opportunities, threats and be an ‘idea generator’ for those seeking a challenge!

o t r e b m e m Re

y l r a E Book best deal to get the

26 AUA NEWSLINK

Network News

Anglia and London Conference The very first combined Anglia and London Conference was held at Regents College London on 13 December. The event focused on three themes: policy development, specialist topics for non-specialists and career development and employability.

The event was opened by Christopher Hallas, Vice-Chair of the AUA, who reminded us all of the AUA’s work on recognising diversity which was evidenced by the range of representatives and speakers from across the sector attending the event.

Christopher then introduced Vicki Baars, NUS Vice-President Union Development.

Vicki gave an interesting talk on “The Future of Tertiary Education” while focusing her presentation on outcomes (possibilities for students) and bringing about that reality for those students.

Morning working sessions covered a broad scope of topics, from finding out more about London Higher, to learning how to network effectively with LinkedIn, whilst some delegates chose to learn how to make modern student services or find out more about the AUA’s PgCert. Lunch hour gave colleagues an opportunity to engage and network with friends, professionals and consultants from across the region and also included welcome visitors from the University of Sheffield, the University of Derby and one colleague from overseas. This was followed by the first afternoon plenary titled ‘From the bottom to the top?

A Female Career?’. Maureen Castens, former Director of Information and Library Services, University of Greenwich, presented an interesting and candid life story which outlined a rich and full journey from leaving University to her final post. Maureen spoke of the critical success factors in her career, which included: ambition, planning her career path, taking advantage of sponsors and mentors at appropriate points in her career, seizing opportunities, location, personal circumstances, stamina, curiosity and engagement and a little bit of luck!

Afternoon working sessions included: • Customer Service Kite Marks in HE - Why achieve them and how to do it? - Mark Crittenden, University of Greenwich and Kate Southgate, University of Greenwich • ASPIRE to support students and succeeding at University: A Financial Support Incentive - Nicole Redman, Head of SMART at the University of East London, AMOSSHE Vice-Chair (Operations) • Student Systems: meeting student needs and changing universities Russell Roberts, University of Derby

I attended ‘Making the most of AUA membership with our accreditation scheme’ which was presented by Laura Ashcroft, Project Officer: Membership and Networks, AUA and Christopher Hallas, University of Greenwich, AUA Vice-Chair. The session gave attendees the opportunity to take part in a guided reflection upon their own development and also introduced useful developmental tools which are available to members on the AUA website. For those who are interested in checking out these tools, go to the AUA website and explore the AUA online CPD framework cpdframework.aua.ac.uk and also the performance development review (PDR) system (available once you have signed into the website under members.aua.ac.uk/Personal_ Development_Record.aspx).

The closing plenary was delivered by Nicola Dandridge, CEO, Universities UK (UUK) who at breakneck speed covered the challenges facing all of us as we head into 2013. The principal message was that we need to recognise that the environment is changing and that we need to look at how we market and advertise our universities to potential students. In addition, that the sector should consider how to introduce flexibility into the recruitment system.

Nicola’s closing remarks also reminded us that contained within her rather staggeringly large hot off the press presentation there were opportunities for us all to help shape the future of the sector.

On behalf of colleagues, I would like to thank our presenters, workshop leaders and sponsors (Clear Links and Electric Paper) for their contribution to a successful event.

Steven Quigley FAUA Academic Registrar, Regent’s College and AUA Trustee

AUA NEWSLINK 27

Network News

Wales Conference The very first AUA Wales Conference was held on 18 December 2012 at Cardiff Metropolitan University.

While the working session were design to offer delegates the opportunity to learn from their peers within the Welsh HE sector, the focus of these session was very much on professional development.

Delegates were able to learn about mentoring schemes, project management, shared services and digital literacy to name but a few of the session on offer.

Contrastingly the plenary sessions were designed to bring a distinctly Welsh flavour to the day from high profile speakers across the Welsh and UK higher education sector. Pam Ackroyd, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Operations), Cardiff Metropolitan University welcomed delegates to the Wales Conference and Cardiff Metropolitan University, delivering a short speech on the importance of administration roles. Dr David Blaney, Chief Executive at HEFCW looked at how WAG policies will affect Welsh Universities, Alison Allden, Chief Executive of HESA delivered a session about HESA and the role of accurate information, particularly looking at Wales. The day

finished with Hugh Jones delivering an interesting and engaging session on current issues and administration in Wales, followed by Tessa Harrison, Registrar, University of Southampton and AUA Trustee, encouraging delegates to reflect on what they had learnt during the

The workshops were really interesting and, like many, I would have liked the opportunity to attend them all!

day and how they could take this back to their workplaces to put into practice.

The Conference delegates were pleased to have been able to attend what they hoped was going to be the first in a long line of AUA Conferences in Wales. Watch this space for future developments!

“Sessions were excellent, provided lots of information about current issues in higher education.”

“A superbly educational day.”

New Network Coordinators Congratulations and a very warm welcome to our newly appointed Network Coordinators, Mark Crittenden MAUA and Emma Price MAUA. Mark Crittenden MAUA from University of Greenwich has taken on the role of Anglia and London Coordinator.

Emma Price MAUA from University of London has taken on the role of Quality Practitioners Coordinator.

If you’d like to become involved in either of these networks please

contact the AUA National Office on auanetworksupport@aua.ac.uk.

Getting involved in any of or networks is a great way to get a little bit more out of your network. Not only will you be able to increase your knowledge, share your own experiences with your colleagues and develop your contact base, you’ll also be able to influence policy and practice within the AUA and the higher education sector. You can do this by becoming an Advocate for one of our many geographic or themed

networks. Visit www.aua.ac.uk/news45-Become-an-AUA-Advocate.html to find out more.

There are still some Network Coordinator roles available for those want to get even more experience and development opportunities out of their AUA membership.

For more information visit www.aua.ac.uk/news-49Network-Coordinator-ProfessionalDevelopment-opportunities-.html.

AUA Members are individually and collectively committed to: • the continuous development of their own and others’ professional knowledge, skills and practices; • actively championing equality of educational and professional opportunity; • the advancement of higher education through the robust application of professional knowledge, skills and practices; • the highest standards of fair, ethical and transparent professional behaviour.

We want you!

The AUA are looking for people to contribute to the next issue of newslink. If you would like to submit an article please get in touch with us via aua@aua.ac.uk

Comments The AUA welcomes your comments and feedback on all aspects of our work which will help us provide a better service to you.

If you have any queries or comments relating to the Newslink publication, please contact: Richard.carr@aua.ac.uk

AUA National Office The University of Manchester, Sackville Street Building, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 1QD Tel: +44(0)161 275 2063 Fax: +44(0)161 275 2036 Email: aua@aua.ac.uk

AUA National Office Staff Laura Ashcroft Project Officer: Membership and Networks Richard Carr Administrator: Communications and Events Brenda Dakers Project Officer: Professional Development Emily Harris Events Assistant

Design: Shanleys www.shanleys.co.uk

The AUA exists to advance and promote the professional recognition and development of all who work in professional services roles in higher education, and to be an authoritative advocate and champion for the sector.

Catherine Lillie Executive Officer (Professional Development) Kathy Murray Executive Officer (Communications & Operations) Noreen Muzaffar External Relations Officer Philip Wolstenholme Project Officer: Web Development & e-Services