Accountability at Newcastle University
www.merzcourt.co.uk
Most British Universities have accountability systems which could correctly be described as palm-tree justice - "cheap, nasty and quick" in the words of an Australian critic who was attacking the remnants of the British "accountability" system in Australian Universities (for further information, go here). (The former polytechnics had a markedly better system, under the CNAA - but the essence of this system has possibly been to a certain extent, if not largely, dismantled as these polytechnics attempt to 'upgrade' themselves to 'Universities' and thereby remove their accountability).
It needs to be borne in mind that the phrase "University Lecturer" is a misnomer. They are appointed to research teams, and all their promotion relies solely on their research - in this sense, their lecturing duties are not a major part of their job at all.
Since March 2004, a new University "Ombudsman" came into operation. Universities were not originally compelled to take part in the scheme, and although just over 100 British Universities decided to do so - Newcastle was not one of them. Nowadays all Universities do have to participate.
Traditionally, British Universities have three levels of "accountability"
University departments are immediately accountable to an external examiner. Unfortunately, external examiners are appointed by the very same departments they are supposed to be supervising. Some external examiners do meet students and so on, but at Newcastle the identity of the External Examiner is kept an absolute secret. Presumably, it would be likely that the external examiner and members of the department are already known to each other, either from a conference, or thru guest seminars, etc. etc.
I am reminded of how the owners of oil tankers react when they have the
choice of who is going to supervise their fleet by virtue of having the choice of
a country in which to register their ships.
Under CNAA rules, the Moderator (the CNAA's name for the External
Examiner) was well known to the students. Further, if you had extentuating
circumstances that you wanted considered by the Exam Board, it was to the Moderator
that you wrote, directly. At Newcastle, all I could do was to verbally state my extentuating
circumstances and complaint to my tutor, Dr. OH King. I didn't have to spend too much
time wondering whether he would transmit these statements, accurately and in their
entirety, to the Exam Board - he made it plain straightaway that he was not going to
bother with one or two major points at all.
Read what Newcastle University themselves think of their External Examiner system, here.
On one occasion, I was complaining about this situation with my then Member of Parliament, Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff Central) and he refused point-blank to believe me. He said he would tell me the name of the organization responsible for appointing External Examiners, which he never did - for the simple reason that such an organization does not exist. I've just told you how External Examiners are appointed, above.
It is not unnatural to expect that any major grievance about exam results would be dealt with in the usual way i.e. before some hearing carried out in the accepted manner, with experts to represent students, cross-questioning allowed etc. (as per the standard model offered by the judiciary of this country, and as actually carried out under CNAA rules).
At Newcastle, the sole method in which a student can express a grievance is to write a letter to the Dean of Faculty, who then deals with it without any further communication with the student. This is contrary to the standard idea that justice cannot be dispensed in secret.
-
When I complained at Newcastle about my degree result
and the fact that it was so low because of the behavior of a certain Professor of
Mathematics, the complaint was dealt with by the Dean, another Professor of
Mathematics,
Professor Barry Johnson (although, since this was about the time of changeover,
the actual final processing was carried out by the new Dean, Professor Glover from the Biochemistry Department).
In fact, when I wrote my letter to the Dean, I was under the impression that this
letter was, in fact, just a preliminary to a hearing (why on Earth would I think otherwise?). I got the shock of my life when I
received a letter back telling me that my letter constituted my entire appeal, and turning it down point-blank, with no further internal
appeal available under University rules.
- The only other action you can take is to appeal to the University's visitor - the Lord Chancellor. If I was to state that the result of an appeal to the Visitor was a foregone conclusion, then I would suggest this would not be too controversial a statement.
- In 2000, the
Lord Chancellor's Department admitted that they cannot deal with University appeals properly.
This was followed, a few
months later, by an announcement by the Government that the post of University Visitor
was to be abolished, and replaced by an Ombudsman.
Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor still continues to hold the post of Visitor to Newcastle University.
Go
here for another report on the Lord Chancellor and his apology for a total balls-up in dealing with a case at Bath University. Further details on this particular case can be consulted in
this article from the Guardian.
You can read what the MP for Tyne Bridge, David Clelland, thinks about this accountability here.
Since Clelland decided to express his opinion that accountability at Newcastle 'satisfies me completely', two main things have happened
- The Visitor stated that he is incapable of incapable of doing his job in this sphere, i.e. investigating university complaints properly.
- Newcastle were forced to join the new University Ombudsman Scheme. I use the word 'force' because when it was voluntary in its early days, Newcastle did not join despite over 100 other institutions taking part.
I did write to Clelland about the first pointy, pointing out the discrepancy between his view and the view of the Lord Chancellor. Additionally, I pointed out the difference betwen his view and the declared aims of the Labour Party to reform University procedures, like the External Examiner. This letter was sent recorded delivery, but no reply was received.
Logically, from what Clelland has said to me, he must also consider the Ombudsman to be a total waste of time. If you know of any evidence one way or the other from what Clelland has said about the topic, I would love to know.
On the other hand, the opinion of Phil Willis, MP for Harrogate and Liberal Spokesman on Education, can be viewed in his letter to me. This is to be contrasted with the attitude displayed by fellow Liberal MP, Mike Hancock, MP.
In short, British Universities have none of the accountability to a fully-independent body which is a necessary pre-requisite for quality, in any field.
When safeguards are weak...........
Letter received from the grandly-titled Higher Education Council (now defunct)
From: Miss Bridget D Rogers, Higher Education Quality CouncilYour enquiry has been passed to me for reply.
Under the Charter for Higher Education only complaints about misleading information in a prospectus can be passed to the Higher Education Quality Council and then only if the complaint has been processed through the University's internal complaints procedure. The University is an autonomous body and HEQC does not have the powers to intervene in its management or the resources to undertake an ombudsman-like role in relation to individual complaints.
It is clear that your complaint alleging 'exam-fiddling' at the University of Newcastle, falls outside the remit of HEQC because it concerns academic matters. These must be dealt with by the University itself or, in the last resort, a court of law.
If you wish to receive information about HEQC's audit process, which relates to the way institutions manage their quality assurance processes rather than to the work of individual departments, perhaps you would let me have your postal address. I will then send you the relevant information
Report from the new Quality Assurance Agency of 2002, which awarded 23 points out of a maximum of 24, to the Maths Department of Newcastle University.
This site created by Brian Daugherty
Email Me