James Higney argues the case for democratic governance of further education in Scotland

Cronyism, nepotism, lack of probity, impropriety, fiscal mismanagement, unaccountability, undemocratic decision making, accusations of corruption, threats of widespread industrial action, allegations of union busting, bullying, harassment, threats of violence, gagging clauses, a substantial increase in industrial tribunals, management imposed disciplinary and grievance procedures, derecognition of the major union for negotiating rights, casualisation of the workforce, staff appraisal, performance related pay, compulsory redundancies, massive cross sector wage disparities, removal of national bargaining forum, loss of promotion structure. Is this the Tory years? Trans-global major private business? Totalitarian government? No. These are all accusations lodged at the governance of Further Education in Scotland in 2003. It is the present day battleground of Scottish further education plagued by deteriorating industrial relations. The above list highlights a sample of attacks and issues that have engulfed academic staff across the further education sector since the Conservative government passed the Further and Higher Education (Scotland Act 1992).

The Tory government of 19991/1992 imposed on the people of Scotland a legislative act based on right-wing ideology, and the dogma of the ‘rolling back of the state’, in the governance of Scottish Further Education Colleges. The Act removed colleges from local authority control, and as incorporated bodies left them in a semi-privatised limbo to be run on a ‘business’-like basis and delivering results using business principles. This destructive competition between further education colleges whilst increasing student numbers has led to a reduction in the quality of the service provided to the communities that the various colleges serve. The competition between colleges in their quest for more government funding has also led to Boards of Management looking to reduce academic staffing costs, either through redundancies or an increase in the staff working week, which in turn decreases the amount of part time and temporary staff. Boards are also reluctant to offer permanent contracts to new employees resulting in a casualisation of the workforce, and also a lack of continuity in the students unitised learning experience.

It is now generally accepted by communities and in trade union circles that the experiment in self-governance introduced by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) act 1992 has failed. A number of colleges have found themselves in extreme financial difficulties, and poor management, far from being a rarity, appears to be the norm. This is borne out by HMI reports and the most recent scathing audit report for Audit Scotland. Auditor General Robert Black stated in a National Audit Report in October 2001 that a total of 34 further education colleges in Scotland reported deficits totalling £18 million. He said that nine had deficits of more than £1 million and of these, five were in dangerous territory. He further commented the five “only remained going concerns on the understanding that financial support from the Scottish Further Education Funding Council or the colleges’ bankers would continue”. Mr. Black said colleges “are experiencing severe financial difficulties” and warned that students may suffer because of the colleges’ money problems. He said: “Continuing deficits may eventually pose a threat to the range and quality of courses in Scotland’s colleges”. Revealing that Scottish colleges have been in the red for six consecutive years, Mr. Black said that apart from a small improvement in 1999/2000 the financial straits in the Further Education sector has worsened since colleges were removed from local authorities in 1992.

Why are most further education colleges in difficulty? It is due to insufficient funding, a poor funding mechanism based on quantity rather than quality, poor governance, mismanagement by Boards leading to industrial relations in most colleges being at breaking point. Witness the number of college workers who have taken part in industrial action including strike action and, the massive increase in ACAS involvement in further education since incorporation. Industrial tribunal cases have also dramatically increased as have the amount of votes of no confidence in college Principals and Boards of Management. Incorporation and the loss of national collective bargaining on pay and conditions of service has brought about an unprecedented level of attack on the wages, jobs and conditions of Further Education workers. Taxpayers, students and local communities are all being short-changed as a result.

The arrangements whereby college boards appoint their own members and self regulate their own activities is one that encourages cronyism, nepotism, subjective appointment of people with questionable skills etc. As the Act stands, College boards of Management are bound to have a majority of members drawn from business backgrounds, usually from the private sector. The only members of Boards who are democratically elected and are therefore answerable to a constituency are the academic staff, support staff and student representatives This makes further education Boards less accountable than most of the other Boards in the public sector, and much less so than those in the private sector that the Conservative government, and now New Labour, so admired.

One of the major current issues is the apparent victimisation of elected trade union officials and negotiators in colleges. The victimisation is mainly on local officials of the Educational Institute of Scotland – College Lecturers Association, Scotland’s largest teaching union. As early as 1994 trade union activists were targeted and sacked at Borders College, to be followed over the years by the same manner of sackings at Jewel and Esk, Reid Kerr, Langside, Motherwell, Clydebank, and most recently West Lothian College. The culmination of victimisation disputes centres on the recent sacking of Jim O’Donovan, president of the EIS-CLA by the Board of Management of Glasgow’s Central College of Commerce on fabricated grounds. The EIS are balloting Mr. O’Donovan’s colleagues at central College on industrial action, including all out strike action, followed by a national demonstration and rally in Glasgow in defence of Mr. O’Donovan, and against victimisation of further education trade unionists in general.

What is to be done? Boards of Management are in disrepute. With the majority on Boards drawn from business concerns and backgrounds, financial considerations have taken precedence over educational interests and colleges have been used for the short-term training needs of employers, and have failed to respond to the long-term educational and training needs of the economy and the communities they serve. Funding through grant in aid to colleges is delivered from the public purse and therefore the Scottish Parliament through the Scottish Executive should be closely monitoring the activities of Boards of Management. The Parliament has a fiscal obligation to ensure that taxpayer money is used properly and fully accounted for. The Scottish Executive must face the issues. They must not duck their political and moral duty to investigate the numerous allegations that are currently surfacing. Through their reluctance to intervene in the governance of FE, the Lib/Lab pact at Holyrood is tacitly accepting the current mismanagement of Further Education Colleges in Scotland. Their exculpation of further education Boards does not augur well for a further majoritarian term in government. Paradoxically, while in opposition part of New Labours electioneering campaign was put by shadow minister George Robertson that if New Labour were voted into Government there would be a “bonfire of the quangos”. Each of the 42 further education colleges in Scotland is governed by a quango, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council, and New Labour has not fulfilled their pre-government pledge.

There is strong argument that the Tory Act of 1992 should be revoked or substantially overhauled. If the Scottish Parliament has teeth it has to ‘bite the bullet’ and introduce new legislation to pave the way to nationalisation of further education in Scotland, with a return to pre-incorporation local authority regulation whith the educational needs and concerns of communities being paramount. Open and transparent governance of Scottish further education is urgent and necessary. Under the current hegemony of New Labour in the Scottish Parliament this would appear unlikely.

James Higney is a College Lecturer, National Vice President of the EIS-CLA and a member of the Scottish Federation of Socialist Teachers