Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Two-tier system should replace ‘ramshackle’ university governance
8 February 2010
Higher education expert to argue that current system falls between two stools and ‘will not do’. Melanie Newman reports
Current university governance arrangements are “ramshackle” and should be replaced with a two-tier system in which separate “courts” represent staff and student interests.
That is the view of Roger Brown, professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University. In a speech to the University of Portsmouth on 9 February, Professor Brown will say that the corporate model of governance that has been promoted by the Government since the 1980s “will not do” for higher education.
Under the corporate model, governing boards are as small as possible, have a lay majority (ideally with business expertise), limited staff and student representation and are distanced from universities’ work.
The drive towards this structure has resulted in unaccountable governing bodies that are “on the one hand, not small, expert or time-committed enough to be able to take effective decisions, but are, on the other hand, not large and democratic enough to be properly representative of the institution and its stakeholders”, Professor Brown will say.
Under his proposed alternative, three courts representing staff, students and external members would appoint up to six members to a “supervisory board” responsible for the overall performance of the institution.
“The vice-chancellor would have to report annually to these courts on how their particular interests were being secured in the institution’s development,” he will say.
Professor Brown will also advocate setting up a single watchdog for the sector, which would combine the regulatory functions of the Quality Assurance Agency, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
This body would have the right to remove “some or all of the supervisory board”.
The professor will argue in his speech that this model would reflect universities’ interests more accurately, provide clearer accountability and deal more effectively with cases where governance “gets out of kilter”.
Commenting on whether governors should be accountable to a higher body, Sir Andrew Burns, chairman of the Committee of University Chairs, recalled the rhyme: “Big fleas have little fleas, upon their backs to bite ’em, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum.”
“We could have infinitely more layers of accountability, but do we really need that?” he said. “Hefce has a new regulatory role under the Charities Act – that is one check on governors. The other is the composition of the board.”
Sir Andrew added that governors would welcome “more dialogue” with Hefce.
“Hefce needs to brief chairs on the talks they have with vice-chancellors and managers,” he said. “Governors are unpaid volunteers, but their reputations are on the line and they are responsible for what goes on in universities. There is scope for improving the understanding and expectations of that role by both sides.”
melanie.newman@tsleducation.com
Readers' comments
Pretty ridiculous recommendation. Again, I have no idea how it works in UK, but in Canada fleas don't bite, they bribe. It is precisely the multi-level system and the multi-interest system that makes it NOT work. As in the society at large, democracy was subverted by crooks long, long time ago: confrontation and dialogue were replaced by collusion and bribery. This is just a fact of life; theoretical expectation of democracy is a nonsense. ---------------- The only way to establish a tolerably honest system of governance is to hold a person individually responsible for making his/her decision. The person who makes the decision must be at the lowest possible position. Currently, the accountability is spread onto the numerous positions with the result that no one in particular is accountable. No one is ever found guilty or responsible. And, when you say: "university is responsible", that sounds ridiculous and unbelievable; and that means - no punishment. No punishment is a good encouragement for the crooks; and here comes the next "case" which is "handled" in the same corrupt "democratic" manner.
“Governors are unpaid volunteers, but their reputations are on the line and they are responsible for what goes on in universities. There is scope for improving the understanding and expectations of that role by both sides.” Ha, ha, ha... Great expectations...
Quite frankly the majority of governors, with honourable exceptions, are pretty useless to the institution - few really understand how HE works and generally tend to be useful only for their contacts (if they have any). What we need, as something akin to the intention that lay behind the reforms to local government ten years back - I would advocate governors being paid as non executive directors, providing a counterbalance to VCs, many of whom are currently far too powerful and need a bit more control (Think recent events at Leeds Met, Brunel, Liverpool etc. where VCs have swept all before them and maybe needed someone to put the brakes on?) Perhaps the governors should be elected (by students, academics and other instiutional staff) similarly to the Brown model, or (perish the thought) even elected by the local population? Or would that take us too close to the old original polytechnic system for some?
The University of Cumbria is more than £20 million in debt. The chair of the Board of Directors (governors) recently stated in public that there is not smoking gun! The board has taken no responsibility for the crisis. While an investigation was announced to check if directors could have acted earlier, the chair is going around in public making comments that it is not their fault. Whose fault is it exactly? How did £20 million disappear? No details were announced as to who will taken on this 'independent' investigation. None of these directors (governors) has the guts to step down.Yes, it is all taxpayer money... Disgrace really.
From what I can tell, Universities (especially the lower level ones) co-opt complete none-entities to their Board of Governors. These Trustees tend to regard themselves more as a Cabinet of decision makers and increasingly less as scrutineers of the Chief Executive's performance. The British governmental legislature in Parliament is an utterly useless and toothless creature, and I cannot foresee how a mere Board of Governors in a University is likely to improve.
Disclaimer: All user contributions posted on this site are those of the user ONLY and NOT those of TSL Education Ltd or its associated trademarks, websites and services. TSL Education Ltd does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by users.