Response to Skilbeck Report.

SIPTU's Education Branch Committee wishes to express its concern at the Skilbeck report on the Future of Irish Universities, and note there was no consultation with any trade unions in drawing up the report.

The general tenor of the report is that because of globalisation, there will inevitably be changes in Irish universities. However there is nothing inevitable about the direction in which Irish universities should go. Contrary to Margaret Thatcher's catch phrase 'there is no alternative', there are always alternatives. It is up to the universities to engage fully with their own staff, both academic and non-academic, to discuss their future direction.

The Branch Committee's concern with the report can be summarised as follows:

Fees:
The neo-liberal tone of the Skilbeck is most evident in the statement that 'Politically sensitive as it may be the 'free tuition' policy is regressive'.

But there is nothing more 'regressive' about a policy which offers free access to university than there is one which offers free school education.

Skilbeck's support for the re-introduction of fees, is in line with an OECD agenda which tries to impose 'user charges' on all aspects of the public services, which, in our view, amounts to a denial of social rights.

Access to universities certainly needs to be improved and in this regard the SIPTU Education Branch Committee support the demand for improved student grants.

We agree with the Skilbeck assertion that universities have a role to play in the wider society and we see part of that role is rejecting the invasion of business concerns into every aspect of our lives. There are some areas where this is not only inappropriate but also highly damaging - education is one of them.

In contrast to Skilbeck, we believe there should be an excellent educational system available to all members of society - not just the wealthier sections. A high quality educational system is an invaluable resource for any country.
Grants which students can live on are a basic requirement. We do not consider our students to be customers who can be milked for what they are worth.

Student numbers: The report anticipates a drop of 36 percent in the number of school leavers from 1998 to 2012 and claims that this poses an immediate challenge to the overall provision of tertiary education.

We have two responses to this:

Firstly, it fails to take account of the stated intention of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness which is to make provision for increased numbers of mature students.

The PPF states: "Investment will be sustained and enhanced so that Ireland is well within the top quarter of OECD countries in terms of the participation of the population in post second level education and training, and in the quality of that education and training."

The PPF also gives a commitment to promoting those policies which make the concept of life long learning a reality. A proper grant system would be one way of doing this, but Skilbeck makes no provision for this.

Secondly, Skilbeck fails to recognise that if there is to be a drop in numbers, that this could provide a valuable opportunity to increase the quality of education by introducing smaller group-teaching methods and greater access for students to more labour intensive forms of practical research.

Skilbeck, instead assumes that universities have to function as market-based entities and find new mechanisms to keep their student intake high.

One of those mechanisms is an increased emphasis on attracting foreign students to universities. However this has little to do with fostering a multi-cultural understanding between students. Rather it is assumed that overseas students can be charged exorbitant fees and so be used to alleviate commercial pressure on universities.

The great irony of Skilbeck's report is that on one hand it advocates a form of corporate globalisation but on the other, supports direct discrimination against overseas students.

Funding:
The reports assumes that universities will experience a squeeze on their budgets and argues that they must find new ways of raising funds to offset the decline in public expenditure.

Among the suggestions raised are 'sponsorship by industry of an even wider range of study programmes and studentships, including those in humanities and social sciences.' and 'training in the establishment and operation of small businesses'.

These types of suggestions together with the general focus on 'partnerships with industry' argue for, and indeed, encourage growing corporate influence on university life.

At a time when key US colleges such as Harvard are re-examining their links with industry in the light of their connections with Enron, this proposition should not be accepted uncritically.

The SIPTU Education Branch Committee questions this approach for a number of reasons.

Firstly, growing corporate influence runs in direct contradiction to the stated mission of many universities to foster critical thinking. Unions in Britain, Canada and the US have all pointed to the many dangers of creeping corporate influence in college life. These concerns include:

-Lack of transparency: corporate sponsorship often involves commercials secrecy which militates against transparency in research.
-gagging of research results: too often commercial sponsors attach restrictions on research, which means they delay or temporarily suppress findings which they do not agree with.

As the American Association of University Professors warned recently, 'when the financial resources of an academic department are dominated by a corporation there is the potential, no matter how elaborate the safeguards for respecting academic freedom and the independence of researchers, for weakening peer review both in research and in promotion and tenure decisions, for distorting the priorities of undergraduate and graduate education, and for compromising scientific openness'

Against a growing reliance on the corporate sector, the SIPTU Education Branch Committee campaigns for proper funding of the universities and the education system generally.

Changing the academic staff:
The Skilbeck report calls for the appointment of 'new staff with aptitude for a broad range of entrepreneurial as well as academic roles'.

We see the tasks of fund raising and education as separate skills. Academic staff are there to provide an education. The universities are providing educated workers for their countries. It is in the government's interest to provide support.

Unfortunately, the emphasis of Skilbeck is on subjecting the colleges to the same ethos, which prevails in big business. The assumption that such an ethos is preferable to one that is dedicated to public service, is highly questionable in light of the succession of scandals which big business has been involved in Ireland and abroad.

Worse, the report calls for a 'greater readiness to draw in part-time and contract staff'. The SIPTU Education Branch Committee believe that the universities are already far too reliant on contract staff and we have sought to negotiate permanent positions for such staff.

League Tables:
Although there are a variety of views on the subject, SIPTU members have up to now co-operated with quality assurance programmes at local and departmental level. Our members were assured that such programmes would not follow the British model but would provide a mechanism for self-evaluation.

The Skilbeck report, however, is now calling for a national quality assurance system, which would be based on 'published and widely available overall evaluative reports'. Despite the standard pleas for a different interpretation, this would amount to a form of league tables for universities. Such a mechanism is designed to create a pseudo market whereby the staff of different universities are placed in competition with each other.

It is most probably the first step on the road to 'top-slicing' whereby colleges would be forced to compete for a segment of the state budget. This could only lead to high levels of stress and unnecessary paper work as colleges engage in 'impression management' rather than addressing the core educational issues they were established for.

Conclusion:
The Branch Committee of the Education Branch of SIPTU believe that the university has to engage in a critical, analytical way with the world, not passively accept it. Changes should not be driven by the finance-based rhetoric of Skilbeck. Rather any genuine overhaul has to seek to democratise the structures of universities and widen access for lower socio-economic groups.

Our third level institutions stand accused of elitism, of not broadening their intake, of not truly reflecting society. The number of mature students attending Irish universities is far below the average for the EU. The number of students from a working class background is also appallingly low.

However, the solutions to these problems cannot arise from the neo-liberal agenda of Skilbeck. There needs to be proper funding and grants for mature students who have a right to a general education rather than just courses, which are simply 'professional up-grading programmes'.

SIPTU Education Branch Sub-Committee
Teresa Urbainczyk: urbain@ucd.ie Tel: 7168559
Kieran Allen: kieran.allen@ucd.ie Tel: 7168274
Brendan MacPartlin: bmacpartlin@ncirl.ie Tel: 4060538