A high price to pay for failing a form-filling test...

People often say, "It's not the money, it's the principle", without really meaning it. In fact, they generally mean the opposite. But the further education college where I teach has recently put me in the unusual position of being able to make this claim with absolute sincerity.

Earlier this year, after protracted wrangling with the University and College Union (UCU), the college management finally agreed to allow suitably qualified lecturers to move up to the top of the pay scale – Spine Point 41, for those who follow these things. But there was a catch. The pay award was discretionary. Only those lecturers who could demonstrate their eligibility would receive the award. And the way we were required to demonstrate eligibility was... to fill in a form.

Like most teachers and lecturers, in the last few years I have had to fill in an ever-thickening blizzard of forms. Forms to enrol students; forms to monitor students' progress (complete with "Smart" targets); forms to record achievement and retention data; survey forms and questionnaires galore, not to mention the Ucas forms I help students fill in – and now a brand-new four-page form to demonstrate that I merit a pay award which, considering that I have worked at the institution for 18 years, I might reasonably expect should be granted as of right.

It is often said, dismissively, that forms are merely hoops to jump through. This is perhaps truer than is realised. Making someone jump through a hoop is a graphic image of exercising power. Forms demand time, effort and concentration – and there are penalties for getting them wrong. It is rare in educational institutions for power to be exercised in its cruder forms; those at the top of the hierarchy do not usually harangue, abuse or bully the toilers at the chalk face. But making us fill in forms is a subtler exercise in power. The form-filler is nearly always acting under duress, and is often, as in this case, a supplicant.

As must already be apparent, on this occasion my form-filling skills were adjudged deficient – along with some 30 of my colleagues. My form failed on two counts: using IT skills in my teaching, and enhancing students' educational experiences. Swallowing my outrage, I lodged an appeal (this necessitated filling in another form, naturally), and in due course was brought face-to-face with two stern-faced stooges who proceeded to grill me as if I had attempted to file a false insurance claim.

Staunchly supported by a union representative, I pointed out that I had used IT in a variety of ways, as detailed on my form, including use of the college electronic system blackboard. But the fact that I had not posted a course outline (even though it was nowhere stipulated on the form that this was the only admissible kind of IT use) counted against me. On the enhancing learning point, my form stated that I'd arranged theatre trips for students – but owing to a deficiency of imbecilic literal-mindedness, I had omitted to explain exactly how literature students who were studying King Lear might benefit from a trip to the theatre to see King Lear. At the hearing I duly spelt this out – only to be told that new evidence was inadmissible as it was not included on the original form.

So my appeal was turned down – although I am allowed to fill out another form to reapply next year. At the end of the hearing, one of the stooges unbent sufficiently to reassure me that the college did indeed appreciate my work, but that the application for the pay award was "form-driven". At the time I was too gobsmacked to reply. But the only appropriate response would have been: "Well, it shouldn't be form-driven, should it?" If a form does not sufficiently demonstrate the applicant's eligibility, then they should be allowed to re-fill it until it does (provided they don't write lies on it). Assuming, that is, that the college is serious about giving the pay award to all the lecturers who deserve it.

Management must have known when they made it a form-driven process that there would be some lecturers who'd fail to make it through that particular hoop – leading to the invidious consequence of lecturers with the same or superior qualifications, capabilities and length of service as their colleagues being paid at a lesser rate (around £2,000 a year pro rata) for doing the same job. It's evident that this is not the way to produce a loyal or contented workforce. On the other hand, it does save money.

Of course, I am not saying that the college is more interested in saving money than in the principle of the thing. But if that were the plan, a form-driven process would be a neat way to accomplish it, wouldn't it?

Useful things, forms.

The writer is a lecturer at Westminster Kingsway College.

From: http://www.independent.co.uk

High Principals and public money

The above from Private Eye.

"...It is hard to see how the public can have confidence in such exercises when potentially crucial paperwork has been destroyed and important witnesses have been gagged through confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements paid for with public money."

Indeed... There should be no doubt, in case this is of interest to the National Audit Office, that the above college is not the only offender, and that HEIs make it a regular practice to silence descent through gagging clauses, thus wasting significant amounts of public money while hiding their wrong-doings. One would have thought that this would also be of interest to the relevant government department... But, hey...

...to exhaust complainants...

"It is increasingly clear that the purpose of Oxford University's current method of handling ethnic minority complaints is to exhaust complainants in order to force them, for the sake of Oxford's brand name, to withdraw their grievances."

Letter from an Oxford academic to Kofi Annan prior to Annan's acceptance of an honorary Oxford degree in July 2001

It is not just Oxford University's current method - it is the method employed by all serial bully universities. Shameful, gutless, disgraceful... It is true that the possibility of recourse to an external court exists. Regrettably, it is a deeply unpleasant, soul-destroying and expensive route which should be avoided if at all possible. However, it can only be avoided if all those who are in a position to stand up for the fundamental values of a university do indeed stand up for them.

Total Destruction...

...certainly for the academics who have been bullied and mobbed out of their positions and careers from these universities.

Injustice destroys justice...

'...When fairness is flouted, the universe is at risk. Injustice is always unacceptable... Being the recipient of such an injustice is more than emotion. It is excrutiatingly visceral. It invades the human psyche with the most lancing cut. Depending on the severity of the injustice, life may ever after be divided mentally between the time before and after the injust event.'

'The experience of injustice alters the percpetion of oneself, off the safety of the world, the security of life, and the belief that wrongs inflicted will be put right. Injustice destroys justice because it destroys belief in justice. It destroys the notion of justice as something more than an activity or an act but as a powerful principal at work in the universe...'

'For some what is perceived as judicial injustice is a crime upon the crime: a further defilement after rape and an insult that exceeds the original assault...'

'Clinically, the emotions and behaviours consequent upon persception of grave injustice are many... It is all action and immobility, all words and silence, all reality and illusory. Sometimes it chokes in indignation...'

From: Dealing with injustice, by Marie Murray

The academy has progressed...

...Most of the mobbing targets I have studied were dumbstruck that such impassioned collective opprobrium could be heaped on them. They thought they were doing good work – as indeed they were, by standards broader than those locally in force. They trusted overmuch in reason, truth, goodness, and written guarantees of academic freedom and tenure. They missed the cue for when to shut up...

Professors and other workers will continue to be mobbed from time to time. Most will be idealistic high achievers with loyalties higher than the local powers that be. Targets will be humiliated and punished – though less harshly than Socrates was. The academy has in some ways progressed...

Kenneth Westhues

Tribunal backs professor's stand

A professor who resigned in protest after his university overruled his decision to fail more than a dozen of his students has won an Employment Tribunal case for unfair dismissal.

Times Higher Education reported exclusively in March 2007 that Paul Buckland, professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University, had judged that 14 BSc students should fail a resit exam.

His marks were confirmed by a second marker and were officially approved by the examination board. But after the board had signed off his marks, the papers were re-marked and the number of fails dropped to three.

Last week, the Southampton tribunal ruled that Professor Buckland "had been put in an impossible position ... in which his views and his position as a senior academic were disregarded in a manner that he was entitled to regard as insulting". This represented a "fundamental breach" of his contract.

After the August resits, 14 out of 16 students failed Professor Buckland's "Reconstruction of environment and economy" course in 2006, the tribunal said.

The exam board was chaired by Brian Astin, dean of the School of Conservation Sciences, who is also now acting pro vice-chancellor responsible for the university's "academic performance". During the meeting, Professor Buckland described the failing students as "thick, knuckle-draggingly thick" and the board "checked and confirmed" the fail marks.

But after the meeting, Miles Russell, programme leader for the archaeology BSc, "intermeddled (sic) in the exam process" when he had "no business" doing so and remarked the papers. He raised concerns with Dr Astin that the marks were harsh and that there was a lack of comments from the second marker, so a third marker was asked to look at the work.

The judgment of the new marker was "broadly in line" with Professor Buckland's, and he increased marks by "between 2 and 6 per cent overall", the tribunal said. But the effect was to push some students "from a clear fail into ... the compensatable range where students can be awarded a pass". The new marks were approved by Dr Astin "by chairman's action".

Professor Buckland "made the strongest possible complaint" that Dr Astin's action "represented an insult to his integrity", the tribunal said. "We are in no doubt that (his) sense of grievance was fully justified."

"We find that it was an act calculated to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between (Professor Buckland) and the university and was a repudiatory breach of contract."

A Bournemouth spokesperson said the university was "very disappointed with the outcome" and was studying the detailed judgment before commenting further.

He said that a review of the scripts by three independent external examiners had shown "all students marked as passing the examination should have those passes confirmed". He added: "We are absolutely committed to maintaining the high standards of our academic programmes. There is nothing in the judgment that would support a contrary view."

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
-----------
We are very encouraged by the decision of the Employment Tribunal. Often what happens under "chairman's action" in Exam Boards is inexplicable and insults the intelligence of good academics whose only priority is quality of education as opposed to bureaucrats who are interested in bums on seats.

Backfire basics - The keys to backfire

Backfire basics - The keys to backfire

• Reveal: expose the injustice, challenge cover-up
• Redeem: validate the target, challenge devaluation
• Reframe: emphasise the injustice, counter reinterpretation
• Redirect: mobilise support, be wary of official channels
• Resist: stand up to intimidation and bribery

The backfire model is about tactics to oppose injustice

Backfire: an attack can be said to backfire when it creates more support for or attention to whatever is attacked. Any injustice or norm violation can backfire on the perpetrator. Backfire can be apparent in adverse public opinion or greater activity by opponents. Even when a perpetrator seems to get away with an injustice, it can be counterproductive in the long term. Most injustices by powerful groups do not backfire, because they are able to inhibit outrage.

Five methods for inhibiting outrage over injustice:

1. Cover up the action
2. Devalue the target
3. Reinterpret what happened
4. Use formal procedures to give the appearance of justice
5. Intimidate or bribe people involved

Two conditions for backfire:

1. An action is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional.
2. Information about the action is communicated to relevant audiences.

Five approaches for increasing outrage over injustice:

1. Expose the action
2. Validate the target
3. Emphasise interpretation of the action as an injustice
4. Mobilise public concern (and avoid formal procedures)
5. Resist and expose intimidation and bribery

An additional consideration: the timing of communication is vital.

Three relevant factors that affect reception of a message are:

1. Receptivity: baseline sensitivity to injustice; meaning systems. If people are already concerned about a type of abuse, their reaction to a new case will be stronger. Social movements can create or increase receptivity.

2. The information environment: visibility, salience (compared with other stories). What else is happening? If other important items are on the news, an injustice may receive little media attention.

3. Actionability: existence of social movements, opportunities for action. When activists are prepared to act, a sudden injustice is more likely to backfire.

The five Rs of revealing, redeeming, reframing, redirecting and resisting can be used in reaction to an injustice or as a way of preventing it.

For example, to help prevent police attacks, be prepared by having witnesses and cameras ready, dressing and behaving in an image-enhancing fashion, etc.

From: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/backfire.html, by Brian Martin, bmartin@uow.edu.au

Elimination rituals...

The University of Strathclyde

The University of Leicester

The University of Nottingham

It has come to our attention that the above three UK universities - due to their actions, fall into the checklist of mobbing indicators as described by Kenneth Westhues, and subsequently they are all awarded the Divestors of People Standard and are now listed in the Hall of Shame.

Sinister...

This omission of proper procedures and standards is at the heart of my complaint and subsequent sacking from my College. My contract states that I am to work 37 hours a week Monday to Friday. But there is another clause that says that I am expected to work flexibly and efficiently.

I've been doing this for years. At first I loved my job so much that I willingly put in many hours overtime unpaid. Then as the years progressed and I begin to feel increasingly disenfranchised I began to flex my hours to enable me to keep my unpaid overtime to a minimum.

Now, because I was seen on a Monday morning by a colleague who subsequently reported it. I have been sacked because the college 'owns' those hours so they have me down as a thief.

The point I have made is that you cannot flex 37 hours Monday to Friday, your either in, or your out. So that contract appears to give the college the right to expect us to work long hours on a promise that you might be able to arrange time off in lieu. Yes!! If your not too busy, or there isn't a meeting coming up or your face fits

This is just one of the gripes made by many of the personnel employed in this centre. I'll show a list of what I think are transgressions below.

I did speak to PCAW about this. The response I got is that at this present time they would advise that whistleblowing could affect my
employment tribunal and to try again after all that is over. This seems to me to be a rather redundant statement but there you go.

Here's my list of gripes.

Trainers are expected to spend in excess of 30 hours per week in contact with students. This leaves little time for paperwork.

Myself was given extra duties because I was on a lecturer pay scale and therefore earning more and receiving longer holidays.

Paperwork is legion and complicated and subject to the variations of human error and availability, therefore being regularly inaccessible.

An large amount of pressure is put onto this unavailable paperwork because failure to 'fill out the forms' (and properly) could result in sanctions from the LSC, which amounts to money, which amounts to jobs.

There is little training and training is inadequate for the complexity of the paperwork.

Huge amounts of resources, papers etc are generated by each trainer during any one academic year. Apart from time wasting this is also an environmental issue.

There is no storage for resources, therefore trainers are accustomed to carrying work around with them in their car or hold it in their house.

There are four computers between 32 people, which results in tensions over usage. Therefore large numbers of trainers have installed computers and internet access to their homes.

Peripatetic trainers are often asked to drive long distances, driving for up 6/8 hours per day. Trainers are often asked to drive long distances, deliver training and then return again, creating 12 or more hour working days. Or are asked to source a cheap form of overnight stay. Pay out of their own pockets and wait for the money to be reimbursed.

There are few procedures written down and those that are are subject to change without consultation usually resulting in email notification and a change electronically to the document.

There are no saving protocols so documents held electronically are duplicated in locations and type. Some have been inadvertently saved over.

These are just few of the many trap doors laid down by this employer, and while I'm the first to say that you would have to live with it to know just exactly how stressful it is. I'm hoping that somewhere someone will see the sense that this particular educational establishment is out of control and responsible for the strain it is putting onto it's staff because this department is an accident waiting to happen.

I've just completed my final appeal with the governors. If they turn me down (and I expect they will) hopefully (it is not clear yet) my Union will get behind me and go to tribunal. I'm not sure whether or not I expect to win that either, but at least then it will be out in the public domain.

People have to know. Education has gone mad. It has lost it's morals along with it's marbles and for me that is a very serious matter. If we are all fish in a big pond then colleges are the barracudas of the pond, universities are the sharks. How can we possibly trust these people to be in charge of educating our young? It is too sinister for words.

Anonymous