“First of all I would like to clarify why the proposals to restructure the School of Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine and Institute of Psychiatry are necessary. King’s College London, like many other universities, is facing difficult choices. Over recent years the external higher education environment has changed significantly bringing new challenges.  Every day it is becoming harder to maintain and build the level of excellence we aspire to now we are in the top league of universities. Undertaking the level and quality of research which is fundamental to our continued success is more and more expensive. The changes to student funding have largely been cancelled out by the reduction in teaching grants and capital grants have all butdisappeared. It is clear that we cannot expect any change in the external funding environment that will address these issues for us, at least in the foreseeable future.

 

These factors coupled with our ambition to offer the best education to the best students and to continue delivering the highest quality research, mean the pressures to improve performance, to be as efficient as possible, and to invest in the best faculty and support will continue to grow. Doing nothing is not an option as a failure to invest will result in a decline in standards and ultimately mean a poorer experience for our students. 

 

There are a series of inaccuracies contained in the petition, which I would like to address.

 

1)            ‘Buildings not people’

The proposals are not about raising money for buildings alone. The changes to the external funding environment for higher education mean that any investment we wish to make – whether to provide world class research facilities with cutting edge equipment, an excellent student learning environment supported by the latest technology, high-quality halls of residence, or scholarships and bursaries - we have to fund ourselves. We need a robust financial strategy to make this a reality.

 

2)            Negative impact on students – larger class sizes/changes in supervisor

Any changes made as a result of these plans will be managed carefully to ensure the student experience at King’s continues to be the best it can be and, where possible, is enhanced.

 

We expect all of our academic staff to contribute at least a day a week to educating students. We have more than enough spare capacity to deliver high quality teaching even with the estimated reduction in academic staff. Our Education Deans will be ensuring that we continue to have the breadth of expertise required.

 

If the proposals resulted in potential changes to supervisory arrangements – and it is too early to say at this stage - we would engage with PhD students on an individual basis to discuss the support mechanisms we would put in place.

 

3)            Proposals will adversely affect women

We are fully aware of the potential impact of the proposals on women who have taken time off to have children. We have explicitly stated in the staff consultation document, and in our FAQs on the intranet, that we recognise that everyone’s circumstances are different and the process will take into account those factors that could have an impact on both research income and teaching time.  This will enable staff whose circumstances have constrained their ability to work productively throughout the period of review to be considered fairly. The factors we will consider include: time off for maternity leave, a career break or sick leave and part time or flexible working hours.

 

4)            Lack of student engagement

Stuart Carney, Ian McFadzean and Susan Lea (the Education Deans in the School of Medicine, School of Biomedical Sciences and IoP respectively) have met the Students’ Union,student representatives and the relevant student societiesto explain the rationale and process relating to the proposals and listen to feedback. They have contacted students to reassure them that we remain fully committed to ensuring they successfully continue their studies and their research. We will proactively take student concerns into consideration before any final decisions are made.

 

5)            Lack of transparency and ‘short’ timeframe

We are committed to a fair and transparent process. The first stage of the process will use selection criteria based on research grant income and education input in terms of teaching contact hours. The final thresholds for research income and teaching input have not yet been set and are subject to further consultation with the College unions. The second stage of the process will involve a detailed assessment of the data and consideration of any special circumstances relating to individual members of staff in the initial pool.

 

The proposed timeline aims to provide certainty to staff as quickly as possible. We anticipate that by early June we will be able to inform those colleagues who will not form part of the process.

 

We understand that these proposals will be unsettling for students but want to reassure you that we will continue to engage with you throughout the process and keep you informed as further detail becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact your Education Dean.

 

Professor Sir Robert Lechler

Vice-Principal (Health)