We’re safe now, right? Dispute settlement and responses to the Restructure Student Survey
This post serves to address the recent student survey, and the dispute resolution posted following Fair Work Commission action.
Last week the Say No to Academic Restructuring at Flinders University campaign circulated a self-selected random sample survey for current students via student Facebook groups. In the first two hours of posting, more than 80 students responded. Currently, there are more than 140 respondents, and this is still climbing.
Today the University Management and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) reached an agreement about the process for handling role redescriptions in the restructure. You can read the published response here. Immediately, it is clear that the proposed process is much more humane, and may even provide the possibility for more staff consultation. However, we would urge caution – the timeframe for implementation is still short, and there will likely still be an abundance of teaching specialist (TS) roles in the new structure.
These announcements, sent to university staff emails, were followed shortly afterwards by a message about using superannuation to plan your retirement. Subtle?
Importantly, this decision plunges students – particularly those undertaking higher degree research – into further uncertainty. First, those students who have finished their first milestone, the confirmation of candidature, will be able to continue with their supervision team under the new structure – certainly a win for those students. For all others – including those in pathway degrees like Honours, this signals further significant turbulence. Now that a merit selection process is to be employed for staff role changes it is unclear which students will be affected by supervisors moving to different roles. But never fear, the Dean of Graduate Research will allocate you a new supervisor… did you say something about relationships or was that just you sneezing? No matter.
It is clear that students must continue to fight for consultation. We must stand united, now that more of us face uncertain times. The process for reaching the 2025 goals may have changed, but the outcomes will likely remain largely the same. Sadly, we cannot consider this a ‘win’ for students, or the Flinders University community.
With this in mind, some of the questions of the survey are now made irrelevant. However, the results still show the serious care students have for this university, and the deeply felt impacts of these changes. This is highlighted in the response rate. The survey was posted squarely in the middle of undergraduate exams. Yet, over 60% of the respondents were undergraduates. Clearly, students have a desire to be heard.
What follows is a report of the first 120 survey respondents.
117 of 120 respondents reported they were aware of the academic restructure.
Of these, 59 reported direct effects on themselves as students, 49 reported indirect effects on themselves because of changes to their lecturers/supervisors.
9 reported no effect.
44 respondents self-selected as higher-degree by research students (including Honours). Among these students, 34 of their supervisors were proposed to be redescribed. This figure will likely be higher now, as more academic staff will be brought into the merit selection process.
32 respondents had access to their College change proposal, 26 reported they had offered formal written feedback. We hope that students will be offered meaningful opportunities to give feedback on the new change proposals as they are released…
… As 99% of respondents selected that there had been no meaningful consultation with students on the previous proposals.
14 students reported that they had been told not to speak out about the proposed changes at Flinders by University management.
79% of respondents thought that the restructure and 2025 agenda were negatively impacting the University’s reputation.
These results are not surprising. When we consider the hurried, poorly implemented and heartless way this wave of 2025 agenda related changes was implemented, it is little wonder that the numbers speak for themselves. Indeed as the new proposals are prepared and circulated, we hope that University Management considers with great care the lives of the Staff – and their families and students – that are being deeply impacted by these changes.
It is our contention that had the Vice Chancellor, Chancellor and University Council (herein ‘council management group — [CMG]’) engaged with channels of feedback and consultation, they would have an overwhelming bank of expertise to draw on from the Flinders University community. This rings true under the new change documents. Student, community and staff consultation brings the kind of rigorous and research-informed change that Flinders University deserves, not the hurried — silenced — ‘behind closed doors’ operations of the CMG and College Management.
While rhetoric flies from the CMG and College Management about students being forced to stand up for their ‘dodgy’ lecturers, these numbers — and the voices of real students — show the daunting realities. The CMG and College Management are so concerned with the implementation of their changes and so attached to an unquestioning and siloed staff and student body that they have silenced at least 14 students who sought to speak out about the proposed changes.
Management silenced at least 14 students who sought to speak out about the proposed changes.
The CMG and College Management is ruling with fear, confusion and uncertainty. They are doing untold emotional damage. This highly-paid executive group is undermining the possibilities for student and staff futures. In this university climate, one student respondent highlighted, management sets up competition: “… extremely competent employees are pitted against one another ensuring some are set up to fail. This means added stress on lecturers who should not be affected.” This will only be amplified under what will follow from the dispute resolution.
Another student voiced concerns about changes at Flinders and the impact on productivity: “It’s quite a hostile environment at Flinders at the moment. I’m in a college where the proposal has not been released and the uncertainty is impacting everyone’s mood and I’m sure their work.” Indeed, these impacts are widely, and deeply, felt by students who note lecturers are under “[i]ncreased stress levels and feelings of insecurity. Making it difficult to ‘get on with the job’. Flinders is not an attractive place to work… [There is] mistrust of senior management.”
“uncertainty is impacting everyone’s mood”
There are serious concerns among the student body about the direction the CMG is taking for Flinders University, and how it is planning to get there. A science and engineering student highlights “senior management just don’t care about their staff and students”. An education, psychology and social work student notes the impact of this carelessness on their lecturers, and the serious knock-on effects on them: “I used to feel challenged and motivated and enjoyed every day I attended. Now I do not want to go, the University is a negative stressful place.”
“the University is a negative stressful place.”
Highlighting the bleak realities of the changes at Flinders students note: “It is a crude way for Flinders to look good on paper while simultaneously making itself an international laughing stock.” These feelings are mirrored amongst dozens of respondents: “not knowing whether you’re going to have a job or not in the new year is a horrible burden to carry.” “The ability to feel the University has the best interests of its students has been lost and instead it feels like it is more about money than education quality.” “Not knowing if you’re going to have a salary to live off of can have dire consequences.” “[It’s] put a foul atmosphere on the Uni, especially when we talk about the higher ups. It’s definitely a loss of trust and faith.”
One student summarises some of the changes clearly. “The callous and brutal ousting of high quality staff that exceed their KPIs shows no management insight into the people being managed. It is a heartless narrow agenda that is impacting on our students, global rankings, and only engenders a reputation of brutality towards its people. This will impact on Flinders reputation long after the board, VC et al have flown the coop.” This rings as true today as it did a week ago, the method of implementation of the first change proposal documents will not be repeated this round, but it will be remembered.
The lasting impacts of the creation of a teaching-specialist role, those with a 100% teaching role, are clearly understood by students. This is not a move to benefit students, it is a move to artificially boost research rankings. One student noted: “If tutors aren’t researchers we are not receiving the same quality of education as we used to.” Another highlighted: “It will affect me as a student through the quality of teaching, as teachers need research to inform their teaching.” Others point to the broader picture: “It is concerning to me that the teaching staff who are so highly qualified and bring so much to my education and professional progression and networking are being threatened, as is my ability to continue to learn from them and grow.”
“teachers need research to inform their teaching”
Clearly, the effects of the professional staff restructuring are still in the forefront of students’ minds, noting ramifications on turnaround and support: “The reduction in the number of admin staff that the restructure has brought has made life a lot more difficult. Emails are returned a lot slower, there is much less organization and fluidity in relation to admin issues.” Another notes: “I’m trying to get advice for a postgrad degree but because of the restructure I can’t find anyone to talk to and no one is answering my emails.”
Furthermore, not only is the local, and global, reputation of Flinders University suffering, but international students are concerned: “The changes are unsettling as an international student as we have invested a fair amount of money for our studies and it is worrying if the accreditation of our degree in our home country is removed due to these changes.”
It is abundantly clear, the restructure — as it looks to us now, even following the dispute settlement — is a bad move for the people of Flinders University. The students, international community, alumni and staff recognise or remember the heart and soul of Flinders. The exceptional care, valuing of students, high quality socially conscious research and prioritising of teaching and learning that makes this place what it is. The moves set in motion by the 2025 agenda, enacted in the professional restructure, and proposed in the academic staff change agendas, and currently being rethought behind closed doors will have enduring effects on Flinders University. This must be stopped — not just a change of process in Fair Work Commission action. All students, alumni and staff must be offered meaningful opportunities for consultation and feedback. Change can be managed well. Real change actually benefits the students and staff of Flinders University, addresses the concerns of the community and builds towards a better University — something we all want. This is not the change carelessly embarked upon by the CMG and College Management. “What is happening with the restructure will take years to repair. Morale of the staff will have a negative impact on students for a long time. All thanks to some sneaky accounting tricks by the VC to improve the bottom line before he moves on.”
“All thanks to some sneaky accounting tricks by the VC to improve the bottom line before he moves on.”
In these times, we need a university that provides community driven research, that makes a meaningful positive impact on the Australian and international landscape, and teaches its future graduates with respect, care and collaboration. As we, the Flinders University community, see it — put so eloquently by a respondent, the current agenda leaves us with little. Indeed, “Flinders may be ranked on the top 1% but the quality of our degrees will be worth less than chips. Really soggy disgusting chips.”
We urge you to stay critical, stay vigilant and have care in your interpretation of the dispute resolution, your deliberation over the new change proposals and in conversations and consultations with University Management. It is imperative that you take care of yourself, your family, colleagues, students and community. More to come.
There is still time, contribute to the survey here: https://goo.gl/forms/rcU39e6U5Xcvn1pS2
For full disclosure, 7 respondents ultimately believed that the restructure was in the best interest of Flinders University — 5 of these respondents were under the impression that restructuring would improve teaching quality because it would make their tutors more available to student consultation and may decrease class sizes. 4 of these respondents believed that the restructure would result in the firing of ‘passengers’ who drag down the research and teaching performance of the university.
We trust our response is clarifying, though we understand many of those were trolling. First, teaching quality will not improve. Tutors and lecturers will no longer be research active and informed by the latest praxis. Class sizes will only increase, as lecturers are expected to take on more classes with more students. Their time to consult, usually built into their role, has been removed. Second — as Professor Colin Stirling has made abundantly clear, there is no loss in positions as a result of the restructure — so these ‘passengers’ will likely retain their roles in the new structure.
A list of the original questions (“survey instrument”) is provided below. The authors attempted to write the questions without any leading statements, however they are predominantly qualitative interviewers, not survey researchers — so our apologies to the experienced survey writers who may be cringing at these questions.
1. Which level of degree are you currently undertaking?
2. Under which college(s) is your current degree delivered?
3. What is your age range?
4. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
5. Are you an International Student?
6. What year did you begin studying at Flinders University?
7. Have you heard about the Academic Restructure?
8. As you understand it, are there any direct effects of the current Academic Restructure on you?
9. HDR students (inc Hons): Are your supervisors’ positions being redescribed (‘affected’)?
10.Describe the effects of the Academic Restructure on you:
11.Describe the effects of the Academic Restructure on your family and friends: (optional)
12.Describe your understanding of the effects of the Academic Restructure on your lecturers/supervisors: (optional)
13.Have you engaged with the official feedback channels regarding the Academic Restructure?
14.Have you been meaningfully consulted about the proposed changes? (Tick applicable)
15.At any stage, have you been asked to limit your discussions about the proposed changes by University Management?
16.I have seen the change proposal for my college:
a. Broadly, do you believe the proposed changes will enable the university to achieve its 2025 agenda goals (top 1%)?
b. How could the change proposal be improved?
17.Have you heard about the 2025 agenda?
18.What, in your opinion, does the 2025 agenda seek to achieve?
19.In your understanding, are the goals of the 2025 agenda attainable?
20.Do you believe that Flinders University degrees should focus more heavily on job readiness, industry preparedness and industry partnerships?
21.In your opinion, what is one goal Flinders University should/could work towards?
22.Do you believe that current moves by University Management are changing public opinion about Flinders University?
23.Have you heard any comments from friends or family about the changes at Flinders University?
24.What is your email address? (Optional)
25.Is there anything you would like to add?
