Apologies: Rachel Garfield, Su-Anne Yeo

Speakers:

Ruth Levin (Regional Officer, UNISON)

The national debt at £8.4bn; however, the Tories think the real figure closer to is £2.3tn. All political parties, and think thanks and pressure groups are calling for cuts; the only difference is in degree. In the UK, the government remains the highest funder of HE (over 50%). There are demands for efficiency savings, resulting in more students with less funding. Cuts are tied to outsourcing at many institutions, connected to “value for money” criteria. There will a review of student funding, which will probably lead to the cap on fees being lifted (with the argument that fees don't adversely affect access to education) and a 2-tier education sector. We don't know what will be planned in terms of integration of HE and FE. There are also possible changes to pensions. As staff are made redundant, there consequences for staff/workload ratios (existing staff must do extra work), which has led to health issues. Nurseries are a particular area of concern.

Matt Waddup (National Head of Campaigns and Organising, UCU)

We shouldn't accept that top-up fees are a fait accompli. The big question will be who pays for higher education. Lord Brown (former head of BP) will be chairing the review group, along with David Eastwood (former head of HEFCE, who supports top-up fees): which means that it is fairly predictable what the results will be (they will say that removing the cap will not adversely affect accessibility). There is a new political consensus which brings together Labour and the Conservatives around the marketisation of education. The Tories have used the concept of the “failing university”, similar to the “failing school”. They are looking to private companies such as BPP to solve the issues – but BPP has had a dubious track record. There is also a consensus about “giving students voice”, but this means a consumerist approach, which is about how much money students will make upon graduation, but is not really about learning. UCU believes in access to education and public investment in education. We have to fight the cuts but also come up with an alternative vision of education.

Comments/Suggestions

• The Tories are looking not only in the US, but also to Scandinavia (where the public sector is used to leverage the private sector). They are attracted to the idea of private universities.

• There is a working group on the nursery; Eliza Darling is on the working group and can be contacted at e.darling@gold.ac.uk.

• Management is currently preparing the ground for cuts of 10% for 2 years in a row. It will be hard to see how this will be done without redundancies.

• The best way to make a case would be to defend provision to students, but not along a mangerialist/consumerist line (i.e. value for money).

• If education is being compared to the US, we need to look at the exploitation of contract labour there (people can work for years with no job security).

• There is a disarticulation of the “widening participation agenda” and the measures that will really make education accessible (low or nonexistant fees, services such as nurseries, etc.)

• It's not only about fees but ELQs.

• The cuts are being made in an opportunistic way, in some cases affecting departments that are financially sound.

• 3 things can be done: 1) support the campaign against cuts in HE, 2) support the campaign on REF, 3) get better at defending part-time/fixed-term staff.

• We need to scrutinise the finances of institutions who are making cuts.

For an archive of older meetings, look here.

Any questions? email us at gucu-admin@gold.ac.uk.

top