Sir Robert Lechler’s response to the KCLSU petition launched in defence of the health schools underlines the points made by UCU about the crude and ill-considered nature of senior management’s redundancy initiative. We list below some of the basic inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his response and reiterate our urgent request that senior management go back to the drawing board and return with a properly thought out consultation document in September.

‘Buildings not people’

At a national level the dismissal of staff to fund capital investment will have a destructive effect on the ability of UK universities to deliver high-level education to students. Delivery of high quality education has been achieved very successfully up until now in spite of lower investment in UK HE compared with other countries. It is accepted that UK universities punch well above their weight worldwide. They will not be able to do this if what we are experiencing at King’s is the start of a national trend. This is one reason why UCU nationally is prepared to consider an academic boycott of the College.

Sir Robert objects to KCLSU’s characterization of the College’s priorities being about buildings over people: ‘The proposals [to cut up to 120 jobs in the health schools] are not about raising money for buildings alone’, he says.

He lists four areas of investment:

research facilities and equipment
a high tech student learning environment
high-quality halls of residence
student scholarships and bursaries.

The first three elements can be categorized as investment in ‘infrastructure’ or ‘buildings’. Only the last element relates directly to investment in ‘people’. Sir Robert makes no mention of investment in staff. At the consultation meetings with staff and the trade unions it was ‘infrastructure’ that preoccupied senior management. ‘Students are attracted to state of the art buildings’, we were told. Sir Robert’s claims contradict senior management’s own briefings to staff, where it argues that the College needs to generate 6% surpluses (£30m, assuming a total income of £500m) to fund the maintenance of its estate and to finance further capital improvement. According to senior management’s own Powerpoint slides, presented to staff: costs must be cut, income increased and performance ‘improved’ to help create the surpluses necessary to invest in buildings. This will require the surplus generated by departments across the College for capital investment to increase by 1% each year from 2013 to 2018 until a total surplus of 6% is achieved. The current target is 2%. A 3% surplus (the target for next year) will allow the College to ‘maintain basic infrastructure’. A 6% surplus (£30m, the target for 2017/18) will allow delivery of ‘normal renewal of buildings and equipment’. It will comprise £15m for maintenance and £15m for the improvement of buildings:

3% to maintain basic infrastructure… £15m = 3% return on income of £500m)
6% to fund business as usual – to include a further £15m pa for capital improvement.
10% return would generate the headroom for strategic initiatives.

(Arts and Sciences Awayday, Powerpoint slide, May 2014)

These figures show that the projected £30m surplus is to be directed exclusively towards the cost of maintaining and improving infrastructure.

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

Sir Robert claims that 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.

Removing staff solely based on crude metrics (about which both UCU and the BMA have expressed profound reservations) is not a ‘carefully managed plan’. It looks more like a brutal and clumsy cull. A decision has been made to dismiss up to 120 staff and then consider the academic consequences. By definition this is not about putting staff and students first. The need to generate a 6% surplus is taking priority. This, as senior managers have made clear, will be directed exclusively towards investment in infrastructure.

Where is the data to support the statement ‘We have more than enough spare capacity to deliver high quality teaching even with the estimated reduction in academic staff’? We know that the health schools’ teaching database does not truly reflect all the activities that staff undertake and ignores many of the aspects of lecturers’ roles that are critical to improving the student experience.

As we are seeing in the Department of Education and Professional Studies (DEPS) restructure, students undertaking postgraduate courses/PhDs in Religious Education and Christian Ministry are deeply upset and concerned about the loss of their supervisors who are specialists in their own fields. Senior managers intend to move the supervision over to Theology, an excellent department but one that is not suited to what are, in essence, vocational subjects. The same kind of issues will apply to the health school postgraduates who came to study alongside experts in their field of interest. Once their supervisors are dismissed the students will no longer have access to them. Expecting an academic colleague who is not experienced in the field to take on the supervision will not enhance the student experience.

During the last restructure of the health schools in 2009/10 it was senior management that insisted on a focus on research to the detriment of teaching. If senior managers took some responsibility for their own actions they would be more likely to garner respect from the staff and students having to bear the brunt of their decisions.

Proposals will adversely affect women

This is a legitimate concern. Until data is provided on the numbers of academic staff placed, or not placed, on the dismissal list by protected characteristics (i.e. gender, age, ethnicity, disability etc.) no definitive claims can be made about this question. Despite rhetorical assurances about ‘transparency’, precise data has yet to be communicated on the final inclusion/exclusion criteria for the initial pool.

The heath schools’ teaching database is not fit for purpose. It does not contain all the information required to make a fair and informed decision, for example number and type of students supervised, responsibilities for running modules, size of classes and amount of marking, time spent delivering pastoral care, etc. Many of these aspects of the academic role are crucial to maintaining and enhancing the student experience. Ignoring them will increase the likelihood of negative feedback from the health schools for the College NSS ratings.

Lack of student engagement

Last year College Council promised to engage students in the health schools consultation and ensure their input into the decision-making process. Students have been told about but not consulted on the proposals. They have been sitting exams and are about to be on vacation. The disparity between the information provided to staff and what is being relayed to students via Sir Robert does not inspire confidence that senior management will ‘proactively take student concerns into consideration before any final decisions are made’.

Lack of transparency and ‘short’ timeframe

45 days is a statutory minimum consultation period. In complex sectors such as Higher Education where large numbers of dismissals are being proposed 45 days is never going to be enough. HR make reference to ‘meaningful consultation’ which is exactly what it should be and precisely what this is not.

Sir Robert says that ‘the final thresholds for research income and teaching input have not yet been set and are subject to further consultation with the College unions’. There was no consultation with the trade unions on the initial thresholds so what does ‘further consultation’ mean?

These proposals are very unsettling for staff as well: they might end up losing their jobs. It is demeaning for staff selected for redundancy to be instructed to write a two-page document outlining their value to the College. There are obvious ways of mitigating this situation, for example a voluntary leaver’s scheme which is better than the one currently on offer and giving staff time to re-orientate towards a higher teaching load.

No assurances have been given on avoiding compulsory redundancies, increasing uncertainty.

Questions for Sir Robert:

Would it not make sense for senior management to clarify its priorities before beginning a consultation with staff?

Throughout the month of May staff were told that a 6% surplus was needed to invest in buildings. You’re now saying that’s changed. If people are now also a priority, will you embark on meaningful redundancy avoidance consultations in line with the provisions of Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which requires employers to consult with campus trade unions on ways of avoiding dismissals, reducing the number of employees to be dismissed and mitigating the consequences of the dismissals?

You claim that some of the estimated £6m-£7m cuts in the health schools’ academic staff costs will be invested in student bursaries. Why have you not mentioned this at any of the consultation meetings? Why are staff being told one thing, and students another?

To our knowledge this is the first recorded example of a university claiming it is cutting academic staff in order to fund scholarships for students. Will priority access to these scholarships be given to the students whose research supervisors have been dismissed?

You claim that your ambition is to improve performance and offer the ‘best education’ to students. Can you explain how cutting up to 120 teaching and research staff will improve performance and make our students’ education better?

We understand that the College has employed a PR firm to help communicate its message regarding this restructure. Reliance on spin, as your letter demonstrates, runs the risk of sending mixed messages, patronizing students and undermining confidence in the way the College is being run. Are you aware that the impression given on all the issues listed above is that you are making it up as you go along?

KCL UCU Executive

UCU’s response to Sir Robert Lechler, Vice-Principal (Health)