Before responding to the five key points Sir Robert raises, we would like to be clear that student campaigners have never suggested that “doing nothing” is a viable option. We are very aware of the financial struggles that all universities have to contend with and understand the need to secure the financial sustainability of the College. Our petition clearly outlines the steps we would like to see, which we believe would result in constructive dialogue, an opportunity to seek viable alternatives and more simply, a fairer outcome. Our main objections are that the decision about what actions should be taken has been made rashly, without transparency, without open and extended consultation and without adequate consideration of alternatives.
Ultimately, these proposals are not in the best interests of current students and staff in the Health Schools, as evidenced by a devastating decline in morale. Moreover, we do not believe the restructure will serve the intended aims of ‘enhancing our position as a world leading university’; in fact, these proposals are likely to achieve the opposite, rendering King’s a stagnant place to study and research medicine, biomedical sciences and psychiatry.
1. “Buildings not people.”
Firstly, Sir Robert wrongly attributes this phrase to the petition. People signing the petition may have summarised the state of affairs in this way, but it is not a phrase used anywhere in the petition, as claimed. When criticising another’s “inaccuracies”, it might be wise to ensure those criticisms are themselves accurate.
Our petition uses the direct wording that we have heard from management (and is also written on the internal KCL page) regarding justification for the redundancies – namely the need to obtain finance for future capital projects, now that Government funding for capital projects has stopped. We contest the accusation that we have misrepresented the reasons given to us for the restructure.
However, as UCU have also pointed out, out of four potential areas for investment suggested by Sir Robert, three can be considered infrastructure / buildings – research facilities, the student learning environment and halls of residence. At all meetings with students, the only justification for the restructure given has been a need to make up for the loss of capital funding – described by HEFCE as “funds to support the physical infrastructure of higher education”, and described by staff in meetings as funds for maintenance and development of buildings. In all the meetings that staff have attended, the sole focus has similarly been on generating finance for the maintenance and improvement of buildings (as outlined in more detail in the UCU response). It would seem that “buildings not people” is a not such an inaccurate summary.
Where exactly are the plans for “invest[ing] in the best faculty and support” that Sir Robert mentions?
The fourth area, student scholarships and bursaries, is not one that any students have been informed of before this response, and this also seems to be the first that UCU and staff have heard of this. The lateness of this addendum epitomises the rushed nature of these proposals.
2) Negative impact on students – larger class sizes/changes in supervisor
Sir Robert’s response to concerns about the impact on students seems naively optimistic. Staff at our schools already work very long hours, trying to juggle an incredibly demanding workload and maintain the high standards that the College is known for. It is unknown to both students and staff where the “spare capacity” is for staff to take on more responsibilities, without standards inevitably dropping in some regard.
Students desire – above all else - engagement with lecturers, prompt and thorough assessment, individualized assessment, consistency in staffing and organization, and varied and wide-ranging learning opportunities. We see no plausible way that these essential areas can be “enhanced” by the loss of such a substantial number of academics. On this note, we draw attention to the further decline in King’s standing in the Guardian newspapers recently published university league table, from position 32 to 40. This plummeting of opinion appears to be largely driven by a particularly low score for the category “satisfied with feedback”. How King’s is able to reconcile improving in this area and the removal of a significant number of academics is simply beyond us.
We also see no plausible way that these proposed redundancies cannot result in changes of supervisors for students, and minimising these concerns completely neglects to appreciate the importance of the supervisory figure for students. PhD students, especially, choose to dedicate a significant portion of their scientific development to working on a project they are passionate about under the guidance of a supervisor they trust will enhance their research skills and critical capabilities as well offer support in future career choices. This relationship is sacrosanct and for a PhD student to be stripped of their supervisor at the beginning, half-way or even at the end of their PhD is an irrevocably negative outcome of these proposals. Additionally, many PhD students are already aware that their supervisor is “at risk” and are feeling the effects of the extra strain being placed on them, with the additional workload required to “defend” their jobs and the emotional toil of these sudden devastating proposals. PhD students are both concerned for both their supervisors and about knock-on consequences to their projects during this time. We are particularly disappointed with Sir Robert’s apparent indifference to this grievance.
We also feel it is insulting to staff to imply that they are interchangeable. Students select supervisors based on their unique skills and abilities, with staff at the Health Schools often leading experts in their field. They cannot simply be replaced by another member of staff, without significant consequences.
We would agree with UCU that these plans cannot be described as ones that have been “managed carefully”, in any regard. Carefully managed planning would have involved openly discussing, with both staff and students, the potential consequences of these redundancies, the alternatives, the best path forward and the contingency plans necessary - before any decisions were made. We would not be left with vague promises that any issues will be resolved on an ad hoc basis, the metrics for deciding who is vulnerable to decision would not be as crude, and the consultation period would not be the statutory minimum.
3) Proposals will adversely affect women
Sir Robert refers to providing fair consideration regarding maternity leave, sick leave, career breaks and part time or flexible working hours; this is obviously positive. However this does not address the structural problems facing women in science, across academic institutions, which are too often overlooked and dismissed. Women in science are systematically less likely to receive the same opportunities for career progression, and are disproportionately represented in more junior and pastoral roles – a problem King’s College London is not exempt from[1]. Many women at the College are therefore at an added disadvantage, especially when crude measures of teaching hours and research grant income are used.
4) Lack of student engagement
Informing us is not consulting with us. Sir Robert fails to recognize our objection to the lack of consultation PRIOR to the plans for redundancies being announced. Meetings that assume the redundancies are in the best interest of the College, and ask students to help make plans for dealing with the impact of redundancies, are a superficial effort at engagement and highlight the lack of prior discussion and thought.
Reassurances that issues will be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, and requests for us to trust that we will not be affected (despite a complete lack of any evidence that the consequences have been meaningfully evaluated), does not show respect for the student voice. The effects of redundancies on students and staff are clearly an afterthought, to be figured out by individual departments.
The explanation for why no-one was consulted sooner really provides no explanation, only a claim that information was given as soon as possible, without elaboration. This is a woeful response.
The rapidly growing change.org petition, of over 2,000 signatories (many of whom are current students) is an explicit rejection of the proposed restructure. Moreover, this petition has been signed by College alumni and external staff from other leading universities. The overwhelming support for our requests necessitates going back to the drawing board, if promises to consult with students are to be considered anything more than empty words. Put simply, this whole process has not been conducted in a manner that befits a world-class university.
Our petition calls for Sir Robert to extend the consultation period and “comprehensively assess the detrimental impacts of redundancies on teaching and research”. This would show a commitment to ensuring successful continuation of studies and research. Delaying these proposals until a time when undergraduate students are back at university, and when postgraduate students are not at critical points in their course, would also show a desire for sincere engagement.
5) Lack of transparency and ‘short’ timeframe
Transparency in the metrics for assessment we see as a bare minimum. Our petition calls for Sir Robert to “exhaustively explore and outline alternatives to redundancies” – this is where we would like to see transparency. When evaluating the impact of the proposed redundancies, that is where we would like transparency.
Sir Robert claims a short timeframe is in the best interest of staff, to “reduce uncertainty”. This is an appalling justification and needless to say has never been a preference expressed by staff. It would seem from UCUs response that they would prefer a truly meaningful consultation, with adequate time to ensure a fair process that comprehensively assesses the proposals – something we fully support.
We hope that Sir Robert will follow through on his intention to “proactively take student concerns into consideration before any final decisions are made” – instead of accusing us of inaccuracies and dismissing our concerns.
We are working with the sparse information available to us. If we are misrepresenting the proposals in any way, it is because of a dire lack of transparency and clarity, with superficial engagement that has come far too late in the process. We maintain that our concerns and objections are a valid response to the proposals as outlined thus far.
It was explicitly promised at College Council last year that students would be engaged in the decision making process. We have not been. If senior management would like to engage with students, listen to the overwhelming number of students calling for reconsideration of these proposals.
As in our petition, we call for Sir Robert to:
1. Extend the consultation period from 45 to 90 days, and have meaningful two-way consultations open to staff, students and unions.
2. Exhaustively explore and outline alternatives to redundancies.
3. Comprehensively assess the detrimental impacts of redundancies on teaching and research.
[1] Women make up 71% of the junior researchers at the IoP, but this is not reflected in the leadership. http://brc.slam.nhs.uk/about/women-in-science