.1 The Vice-Chancellor welcomed new members of Senate and four visitors to the University from the University of Lodz, Poland.

.2 The Vice-Chancellor reported on the funding debates within the CVCP and Government. CVCP, soon to be retitled 'Universities UK', was undertaking a review of funding options from which no single option was likely to emerge. The Minister for Higher Education had recently made clear that the introduction of differential top-up fees was not on the Government's agenda for this Parliament. It was a cause of concern to Vice-Chancellors that Higher Education was the only area of the public sector informed only of its first year of three-year funding following the comprehensive spending review: the possibility of HE funding becoming a casualty to other priorities was very real.

.3 The Vice-Chancellor reported on the University's success in national league tables, having moved from 26th to 17th position in the recent Sunday Times table, partly the result of strong performance in teaching quality assessments and completion rates; they reflected a positive forward momentum. The Department of Information Science was to be congratulated on achieving a maximum score of 24 in its recent ESR. Loughborough students were also to be congratulated for their top ranking in the recent Red Mole website survey, which could be seen as a measure of the totality of the student experience at Loughborough.

.4 A member questioned the kudos that should be claimed from association with the Red Mole survey, having recently viewed the Red Mole website. Members were assured, however, that the survey had been a more serious activity than some of the material currently appearing on the website, covering such issues as accommodation, sporting and union facilities. Another member drew attention to the University's apparently poor rating in terms of student-staff ratios. The Vice-Chancellor informed Senate of the inadequacy of measurement of the SSR indicator, which did not count postgraduate load. Having a small postgraduate load the University's position therefore suffered. He also reminded Senate that there had been no significant change in SSR across the University over the last 7 years, which had been sustained in part by the focus of resources to academic departments.

.5 The Vice-Chancellor reported on a satisfactory position for UK/EU recruitment and a very encouraging position on international recruitment, which was showing a 20-30% increase for undergraduates and 70-80% increase for taught postgraduates. Congratulations were to be extended to all those involved in this achievement, which would make a significant difference to the University's financial position. A member informed Senate that this achievement had been the result of much effort and if international recruitment was to continue to succeed it would require additional funds to permit the flexibility to seize opportunities as they arose.

.6 The Vice-Chancellor reported that in many respects the University had achieved its aim in the Strategic Plan of being within the top 20 universities for research. Recent 'Link' data from industry had shown Loughborough to be within the top 5 or 6 universities and recent HEFCE indicators in the publication 'Research Fortnight' had shown Loughborough to be 12th in ranking for research grant and contract income:staff costs. This was most encouraging.

.1 The Registrar presented a progress report on areas in structural deficit. The initial 'open offer' trawl of Stage 3 had been completed in Chemical Engineering, Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Chemistry and Physics, but insufficient interest in offering early retirement/voluntary severance had been achieved and specific individuals would now be approached. If insufficient savings were achieved it might prove necessary to ask Council at its December meeting to establish the Redundancy Committee. It was hoped this would not prove necessary. Senate was informed that the position of the Building Services area of Civil and Building Engineering had recently changed such that it was no longer in structural deficit and would be deleted from the list. It was pointed out that staff resignations did not necessarily change a Department's position, depending on whether or not the post needed to be replaced.

.2 A Head of Department expressed his unhappiness at the handling of the 'open offer' trawl which had been sent to all staff within his department, including probationers and new staff. A great deal of discomfort had been created amongst staff as the result of such an insensitive approach. The Registrar AGREED to review the procedure as to whether it could be improved and whether future letters to staff could be discussed in advance of circulation with the Head of Department.

.3 A member urged Deans and Heads of Department and all others involved to be constructive in this difficult situation, treating staff with sensitivity without harassment or embarrassment, and making every attempt to relocate staff and avoid redundancy. The Vice-Chancellor expressed his support for these comments.

.4 In response to a query, Senate was informed that Human Resources Committee had not been involved at any point in discussion on the handling of areas in structural deficit and that the processes involved were fast-moving, day to day activities suitably handled by professional personnel staff. It was nevertheless considered appropriate that Human Resources Committee should be involved in the discussion of any policy issues; the Vice-Chancellor undertook to follow this up.

.1 Senate considered recommendations from Resources and Planning Committee, together with Council's comments on those recommendations and Council's recommendations which were subject to Senate's confirmation. The recommendations of the Resources and Planning Committee and Council were:

a) With great regret, to support the closure of the Department of Education.

b) To retain ITT in PE, and Design and Technology.

c) To retain ITT in PE, Design and Technology and Science.

d) To withdraw from Primary ITT.

e) To withdraw from ITT in Secondary English.

Council had delegated decisions on the following two further recommendations from Resources and Planning Committee to Senate, asking Senate to consider carefully the points put forward during the Council discussion:

f) To retain ITT in Mathematics.

g) To withdraw from ITT in ICT.

.2 The Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities explained the factors which had led to this position, outlining the conditions encountered by small-provision ITT providers, of which the University was one, the issues of recruitment/intake quotas, quality and costs central to the assessment of the risks associated with continuance in ITT, the internal assessment of those risks for current provision, and the external factors contributing to surplus/deficit in ITT which were largely beyond the University's control. The financial projections showed a strong case for the withdrawal of ITT provision in Mathematics and ICT. In addition, only one academic member of staff supported Mathematics provision, and one-person subject staffing was extremely risky. There was, nevertheless, support for the continuance of ITT provision in Mathematics and ICT within the University, and within Council, which had highlighted the national shortage of teachers in these areas and their importance to the University's subject base.

.3 Senate was informed of the dependence of OFSTED gradings in part on the quality of Partnership schools/departments, over which the University had no control, and how quotas were influenced by OFSTED gradings. In addition, School Centred Initial Teacher Training was removing quota from higher education institutions. All aspects of the University's ITT provision currently carried a B grading, with guaranteed 85% of quota, but an inspection of ITT provision in ICT next year was likely to result in the lower C grade. There was no current provision within the East Midlands institutions above grade B. Partnership fees of £700 were below the national average and it was likely that schools would wish to re-negotiate a higher fee.

.4 The Vice-Chancellor reported on the heroic efforts of the Education Department to increase its load through module options, having no undergraduate programmes, but an FTE of 60 over 40 modules highlighted the problems of viability facing the Department. A Senior TTA official had recently expressed his desire for Loughborough to continue with ITT provision in Mathematics and ICT. The TTA was concerned about national recruitment in these and other areas and the bursary scheme had not yet shown itself to be successful. The TTA Board was investigating a regional policy to support ITT recruitment, which would be piloted in the East Midlands. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) reported on the attempt made by the University's Review group on the Education Department and ITT to restructure regional ITT provision by transferring some of the University's quota to Nottingham Trent University. The TTA had vetoed such a move.

.5 The issues were opened for comment from members. Much discussion ensued, with cases being made for both the continuance and withdrawal of ITT provision in Mathematics and ITT. The case was made that with the University's history and record of strength in science and technology, and the need for teachers in these and other areas, the University should make the strategic decision to retain that provision. Projected deficits were small compared to others being experienced and there would be no savings on space charges for the University should the provision be discontinued. A member proposed that the provision in Mathematics and ICT be continued, the deficit identified be top-sliced, and the position be reviewed after two years. This was supported by the Dean of Engineering. Another member recommended that the Department of Education remain in existence for that review period, with recruitment of staff being better undertaken by that Department than by subject departments and students more likely to remain at the University for both their degree and teacher training should the Department be retained. Senate was reminded that Resources and Planning Committee and Council had found no case for maintaining the Department of Education. In addition there was evidence that graduates returned to their own region for further training to help offset the debts they had already incurred during their first degree.

.6 Points raised in support of continuing ITT provision in Mathematics and ICT were:

• The national shortage of teachers in these areas was now desperate. Government action on this might well result in additional future funding.
• Current funding mechanisms worked against continuation of provision, but could become more supportive.
• The Engineering Directorate's view of the importance of Mathematics teaching in schools to the recruitment of suitably mathematically-equipped students to engineering programmes and the future of engineering in the UK.
• The negative signals that would arise from a strong science and technology-based university withdrawing from Mathematics provision. Withdrawal would be symbolic.
• There would be a guaranteed market for future recruitment.
• The risks were small from a global University prospective.

.7 Points raised in support of discontinuing ITT provision in Mathematics and ICT were:

• The Department of Mathematical Sciences' view that it had no wish to become involved with ITT provision.
• The inclusion of such provision would introduce fragility to what would be a small, high-quality and committed ITT Unit with existing international reputations. The opportunities for such a vibrant unit should not be jeopardised. Policy should be to play to strengths.
• Attempting to maintain breadth of subject coverage would be at the expense of support for areas of strength and the creation of new areas.
• The dangers of one-person subject provision, with the likelihood of becoming TTA non-compliant should that person became unavailable, and the consequences of this. With low quotas and recruitment, both Mathematics and ICT could not support more than one member of staff.
• The danger of providing an inadequate quality of provision.
• The likelihood of schools seeking higher Partnership fees.
• The future for Mathematics provision was in large providers.
• The University's withdrawal from Mathematics teaching would not affect the number of Mathematics teachers in schools.
• It was not the University's duty to provide Mathematics teachers.
• The difficulties of recruiting new lecturing staff from the teaching profession in view of the likely drop in salary.
• The case for continuing ICT provision was particularly weak. The Computer Science department did not seek Computing 'A' level from its potential students as it did not consider this a helpful grounding.
• Withdrawal of provision would not be symbolic of a lessened commitment to science and engineering.

.8 Concerns were raised about the suggestion of maintaining Mathematics and ICT provision for a trial two-year period. Some felt this to be the worst possible option, raising staff uncertainty and possibly loss, with the likelihood that quality would suffer.

.9 Members raised questions about how the proposed ITT Unit was likely to operate, and were informed that the Unit would be comprised of approximately five administrative and support staff who would liaise with schools and be involved in student recruitment in conjunction with the relevant academic staff, themselves based in academic departments. In the case of Design and Technology and PE staff, these would be based in their relevant departments; other subject specialists would need to be based in one of those departments. The 'spiritual' home of Design and Technology and PE ITT students was already within these departments rather than the Education department.

.10 Members acknowledged the need for TTA to amend its policy from that of low quotas in many providers resulting in low viability to that of a lower number of providers with larger quotas. It was questioned whether or not the University should effectively be taking on this role itself through its decisions. A member advised Senate to look unemotionally at any decisions it made, not voting to retain provision for purely symbolic purposes.

.11 The recommendations from Resources and Planning Committee and Council were put to the vote. It was RESOLVED, nem con, to approve and confirm respectively the following recommendations of Resources and Planning Committee and Council, with effect from 1 August 2001:

.12 The motion was put and seconded that the recommendations of Resources and Planning Committee to continue with ITT provision in Mathematics and withdraw from ITT provision in ICT be amended such that the provision in both areas be retained and reviewed after two years, and during that period their deficits be top-sliced. The amendment fell (10 votes for : 20 votes against).

.13 Senate voted on the remaining recommendations of Resources and Planning Committee as follows:

To retain ITT in Mathematics (11 votes for : 22 votes against)
To withdraw from ITT in ICT (26 votes for : 8 votes against)

It was therefore RESOLVED to withdraw from ITT provision in Mathematics and ICT with effect from 1 August 2001.

.14 The Vice-Chancellor informed Senate of his disappointment at the decision to discontinue ITT provision in these two areas, particularly in Mathematics. He informed Senate that arrangements would be put in place to secure successful completion for students on programmes which continued beyond the effective date of 1 August 2001, and that matters would be put in train to establish the ITT Unit within the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities.

.1 Senate considered a recommendation from Resources and Planning Committee for the establishment of the Research School in Ergonomics and Human Factors from 1 October 2000. It was noted that Council had approved the recommendation, subject to Senate's confirmation. Professor Eason, Director-Designate of the proposed Research School, outlined the proposals which would bring together the Human Factors and Ergonomics expertise currently on and off campus. With current planning for the centre site this was an opportune time for ICE, HUSAT and part of Human Sciences to be brought together geographically as a 'real' rather than 'virtual' School.

.2 The Head of Department of Human Sciences informed Senate of his general support for the formation of the Research School, but that he was unable at this time to support the detail of the proposal in relation to management structure and the proposed framework for academic staff involvement in research schools as this had not been discussed within the Department or by the Directorate.

.3 Senate was informed that the overall concept of Research Schools would be discussed at Research Committee, the Council briefing and the Senate 'vision' day. A member expressed his regret that some longstanding staff in the Research School were being offered inferior six-month contracts, which he hoped could be addressed as soon as possible. The University should be striving to retain its high-quality research staff. The Vice-Chancellor informed Senate that open-ended contracts for researchers in Research Institutes were only likely with risk-based budgeting and even then if the volume of activity was not maintained a move to redundancy might be needed.

.4 In response to a query Senate was informed that the establishment of the Research School would not necessarily affect the number of staff returnable in the impending Research Assessment Exercise. The establishment of the Research School would be flagged in RA5, but researchers would be submitting in various assessment groups. Senate was assured that future RAEs would not suffer from issues of client confidentiality or intellectual property associated with the particular type of research and that only an increase in RAE returns would be expected from the Research School in the future.

.5 It was RESOLVED to confirm Council's approval of the establishment of the Research School in Ergonomics and Human Factors from 1 October 2000, subject to the development of agreed operational details.

.1 Senate received a paper from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The Director of Estates Services outlined current proposals. It was noted that these had not yet been discussed with constituent departments and sections, and only the crudest of space checks had been undertaken so far, with no assessment of services in buildings compared with future occupants' needs. Senate was informed that a broad-brush strategy for the centre site needed to be approved before the details could be determined, and this was being sought from Senate on this occasion. Delay would result as long as the broad-brush strategy remained undetermined.

.2 The Chair of the Space Working Group informed Senate that a meeting of the Group was being held that afternoon when it was intended to set up the process of consultation with departments on the broad-brush strategy. Two members of the Department of Information Science expressed their unhappiness at the proposal to move the Department to Haslegrave/Schofield. The Department was happy with its current location and would not wish to move to space no better in terms of quantity and worse in quality. There was also unhappiness that the concept of a School of Informatics should be introduced in this particular way. The Dean of Science replied that there were alternative proposals for Information Science presented and that there was no intention in the first proposal for its relocation of a merger between the Department and Computer Science or of joint ownership of space.

.3 It was agreed that the Director of Estates Services would not be asked at this stage to move on with the proposals, but that the Space Working Group be asked to report to Senate at its next Ordinary meeting with a refined 'broad-brush' picture. The Deans' role was critical in this exercise to ensure the necessary consultation and communication.

.4 A member drew attention to the number of grammatical errors within the paper and requested that Senate papers be checked for elementary grammatical errors in future. The Vice-Chancellor concurred. This was a responsibility of authors and the secretariat, and, in a wider context, all members of the University.

Author - Jennie Elliott
Date - October 2000
Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.