Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
HEA's ex-chief calls for change in a frank end-of-term report
11 March 2010
The national body for university teaching has a future - but not in its present form, says its former head.
Inconsistency in performance across the Higher Education Academy is clear to outsiders, there is duplication of functions, and some parts "sometimes produce poor material", Paul Ramsden says in a paper presented to the HEA board.
The report, seen by Times Higher Education, says the HEA is viewed by critics as "conservative, self-serving and inward-looking".
It calls for "creative thinking" on the HEA's network of 24 subject centres, set up to support teaching in different disciplines, suggesting the number could be far smaller.
It also says that the organisation, now facing a reduction in core funding of about a third by 2012-13, should not assume that its large central office in York is a "necessity".
Professor Ramsden writes that his discussions across the sector ahead of his retirement in late 2009 made it clear that people wanted to help the HEA succeed, but that "substantial change" is needed.
"I have formed the firm opinion ... that the organisation has a sustainable future - but not in its current form," he writes.
The paper sets out his views of the HEA's future, although Professor Ramsden says he does not want to restrict the freedom of his successor.
While one of the HEA's strengths is its capacity to improve teaching via academics' primary allegiance to their subjects, there are also downsides to this model, he says.
"With the best will in the world, we cannot say that academics are exclusively concerned with the quality of the student learning experience."
Some believe that, rather than focusing on academics and professional staff, the HEA should concentrate on what universities, the government and funding bodies need to improve the student learning experience, he says.
On the issue of subject centres, Professor Ramsden asks whether 24 is the right number. "To most outsiders ... it seems large," he writes.
The structures he has most often heard suggested are an arrangement of three or four "colleges" or a model of 10-12 subject centres.
"Inconsistency in performance across the academy is apparent to outsiders. Parts of it ... sometimes produce poor material", and subject centre performance is variable. These issues are associated with "trying to do too much" and with management structures.
The HEA is an "exceedingly decentralised" organisation with a large footprint, which suggests to outsiders that it is "inefficient (and possibly rather old-fashioned)".
"We ... find it difficult to secure consistent and entire organisational focus on any priority," he adds.
Two-thirds of the academy's £30 million a year funding is devolved to subject centres "with only minimal control".
A more "rational" arrangement would be to employ all staff directly and to have reporting lines from "deans" or heads to the executive.
"This would also give power to the very senior staff in the academy who may currently feel ... they have little control."
An HEA spokeswoman said the academy had an important role and was looking at the best way to develop its work, but no decisions had been made. She said the paper presented Professor Ramsden's personal reflections at the end of his term and provided "additional background to inform discussions".
rebecca.attwood@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
While few could take issue with some of these criticisms of the HEA by Paul Ramsden - inconsistency in performance, sometimes producing poor materials, there being nothing intrinsically right about the number 24 - we should not just blindly accept all that he says. In fact it is a little rich that he says he recognises that "the HEA is viewed by critics as 'conservative, self-serving and inward-looking'," which I would argue could largely be blamed on Paul Ramsden himself. Many of us would have liked, and in fact personally urged him, to take a more pro-active stand regarding championing issues of learning and teaching at national level but from day one he seemed nervous about the Russell group and research-intensive institutions and desperately unprepared to rock any boats.
Most importantly, whether to 'concentrate on what universities, the government and funding bodies need to improve the student learning experience' or to focus 'on academics and professional staff' should not be seen as an either/or. I would welcome the HEA becoming a more strident voice regarding the quality of pedagogy in UK HE and working at a policy level, but we also need to nurture bottom-up grassroots development. And that is what many, if not all, of the Subject Centres have been so good at.
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the account of the central functioning of HEA given by Chris Rust but would very much endorse his final points about grassroots development and the subject centres. As an academic working on learning and teaching issues within the area of economics I have found the Economics Subject Centre of the HEA to be the part of the HEA which has been (by far) the most useful aspect of that organisation for me in developing my pedagogic ideas and practice. This has been both because of the grassroots and subject-based nature of the Centre and also because of the high quality of the material produced by it, both in written form and through workshop and conference delivery, in my experience. If the HEA is to be cut or reorganised, in my view the most important element of its work requiring safeguarding is that of the Subject Centres.
Considerably more transparency over the current form and function of the HEA is essential and so the surfacing of Paul Ramsden's paper should be considered a welcome development. A fair point has, however, been made by Chris Rust. Paul Ramsden was meant to be the leader of this organisation. He had a relatively long tenure so why did he feel he had to wait until his retirement to articulate his views? He should have felt secure enough to initiate a sector dialogue when economic circumstances were considerably more positive and so would not have become the primary driver of thinking. The key question is whether we actually have an authentic Higher Education Academy at all? Or has it just become another quango or agency with few, if any, of the key attributes of a genuine academy? If the latter is the case then any leader of the organisation will never be able to meet the varied and complex expectations and demands of the sector and so it is doomed to eventual failure, if not in this fanancial crisis then in some near future crisis. If the latter is the case, then perhaps it is not just a reconfiguration of the existing organisation that should be considered but whether it actually needs to exist at all? Are there not aspects of its work that could be delivered by other bodies like the Leadership Foundation, JISC, professional bodies, or subject associations? If, however, the HEA is to become a genuine academy then it is going to require an experienced, energetic, courageous, and charismatic leader who can realise such a vision despite the additional difficulties she or he will now face.
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.