How and why the University is failing its students and staff

Our University is undergoing major restructuring aimed at cost-cutting. The result is the staff redundancies that are expected within the next year or so, many of whom will be academic and technical staff directly involved with student activities. But there are other less obvious changes being made behind the scenes that will alter the range of courses that are offered to students, when they are offered, and their quality. It will also affect the facilities and support available to students and staff. Many of the decisions will negatively impact on the choices of courses available to all students (regardless of which department you are in), the time available for staff to assist student learning, the teaching and learning spaces available to students, and ultimately the quality of the education that students will receive at the University of Canterbury. The changes also negatively affect the framework within which staff operate. Here are a few examples of some of the changes you can expect:

• Existing library collection and study space, notably the EPS library, to be diminished to make room for offices;
• Significantly reduced funding for tutoring, especially within the Arts department. Instead, lecturers are expected to tutor most papers themselves. This is bizarre, as lecturers are simultaneously supposed to increase their research output in order to increase the university's ratings, whilst also taking on tutoring responsibilities;
• Smaller classes are likely to be cancelled if they don't meet enrolment numbers by a deadline set well in advance of the start of semester. But, as we all know, students frequently enrol at the last minute or shuffle between classes in the first few weeks of term; and
• The number and timetabling of courses are now dictated from management, removing the control of departments and staff over their own schedules.

What is wrong?

Perhaps the decisions that University management have been making are necessary; perhaps they are not. Either way, it is hard for students or staff to gauge the answer as there is almost no transparency to the decisions that are being made. What this means, is that we – students and staff – have no knowledge of where money is being allocated, to what purpose, and the reasons behind these decisions. Even the Contribution Margin formula, which allows management to redistribute from one department to another, is kept hidden from staff. We are told of decisions without meaningful discussion or explanation as to why decisions are being made. The result is an increasingly small group of senior management that controls the purse strings and thus the future direction of the University.

As the transparency of the decision-making process declines, so too does the accountability of senior management. With it goes our ability to shape the University's policies. This is an astonishing situation to be in. If you have any knowledge of how government operates, you will know that a crucial part of ensuring that fair process is adhered to and just decisions are made involves parliamentary and public oversight of the decision-making processes - or alternatively, a CEO of a corporation has to be accountable through transparent books to his or her key stakeholders. If stakeholders and the public determine the direction of a company or government, why do the key stakeholders at the university – the staff and students – have no input into the decision-making process at such a crucial time?

The problems with the governance structures of this university have become patently clear in the aftermath of the earthquake, when finances have come under increasing pressure – we have been told, or at least have deduced, that much. The real problem, however, is that there is no knowledge outside a select group of management of the scale or dimensions of the problems the University faces. Apparently, as "Mr. Socks" pointed out in last week's Canta, the University had a $12 million surplus in 2010, with a $9 million surplus in 2009. If the University really is running out of money, where has the money gone? We have no way of knowing. Without this knowledge, there is no way of holding management to account for the decisions that they have made.

Perhaps aware of the unrest the decisions have been provoking among staff, the University management has been going through rituals of legitimation, whereby staff members have been consulted for their opinions on the way forward. But this consultation is by no means effective, as management's centralised, vertical governance structure does not allow for any input into the decision-making process. Staff are "consulted" to minimise the impact of unilateral decisions, but cannot contribute to the decisions, making the "consultation" effectively meaningless.

For students, the reality is that we are busy, and our priority is our studies. As a result, consultation is hard to get. This needs to be taken into account by University management, but should not deter meaningful student input into decision-making processes on matters that affect our education. The University should be catering for student needs and it is falling short in that area. There seems to be a greater focus on creating cosmetic spaces and grand entrances which will look great on photographs but won't contribute to a more valuable education. To recover from the earthquake, we need the University to focus their investment on the basics: effective study and teaching space, access to books and other resources, and maintaining the quality and range of courses and teaching available. This would add far more value to the campus with less expenditure than creating aesthetically-appealing but functionally-impractical spaces.

What needs to be done?

The University of Canterbury is in a strong position to make meaningful changes that will have a positive effect on its future. First of all, the University has an incredibly dedicated staff base. At meetings of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) our lecturers have been discussing taking pay cuts to get the University through this tough time. But few staff want to donate part of their pay packet into a system where they have no input and where there is no transparency for how the money is being used. This is fair enough. Governments and corporations have to be accountable to their key stakeholders. So should the University.

The University is also a place of higher learning, where we have access to key specialists in numerous fields. Our lecturers hold a wealth and breadth of knowledge that is sorely needed to get us through this challenging time. If the University is to attract future students to Canterbury, it needs a point of difference. We need to draw on the knowledge and vision of staff and students to govern in a creative and innovative way. If staff and students cannot see how things are being done now because of a lack of transparency, a viable alternative cannot be put forward.

The University needs to be attractive to both students and staff – because what is a university without world class experts? To do so, we need to operate within a framework in which the expertise of staff is valued, and where they have the ability to determine the environment in which they work best, for the purpose of providing a world-class education for us. This is not only vital to the long term viability of the University of Canterbury, but also for the development of the Canterbury region.

Essentially, we need to ask for whom is this university being run? If it isn't for the key stakeholders – the students and the lecturers – then who?

What can you do?

• For starters, sign the Tertiary Education Union petition: http://teu.ac.nz/2011/09/supportcanterbury/
• If you have a story from any department or school that could be relevant, or just want to get in touch, email: canterbury.transparency@gmail.com
• Talk to your lecturers to find out what specific issues are affecting them and what you can support them.