OXFORD University is proposing to end 800 years of decision-making by transferring powers from colleges to a single academic council and an independent board of trustees.
The "fundamental" changes put forward in a strategy paper today would streamline decision-making and are intended to maintain Oxford's position as a world-class university. A 150-strong academic council drawn from faculties and 39 colleges would oversee academic matters and would end the "parallel structures" of separate collegiate and university decision-making.
Under the proposed reforms, a six-member working group consisting of Oxford academics and one businessman also suggests a new, independent 13-member board of trustees drawn from business and legal circles to oversee university finances and scrutinise its "general strategy", with the chancellor and vice-chancellor in attendance. "The benefits which would flow from this would be considerable," the authors wrote. "Issues would be discussed through a single process and decisions reached more quickly."
Last month (The Times, 25/1) the university admitted that it was in effect being bailed out by the Oxford University Press, whose payments covered an annual £20 million deficit in running costs. Underfunding had left a £95 million deficit on teaching and research in 2003. The strategy paper, recognising that academics are not always the best people to run a multimillion-pound business, states: "it is no longer possible to secure consistently from within the institution the range of experience and knowledge for the exercise of good institutional governance."
The proposals form the second strand in a two-part strategy to overhaul the university. They closely follow those put forward last year in the Lambert report. Richard Lambert, a former Editor of the Financial Times, then suggested that Oxford and Cambridge needed to implement reforms to make them more responsive to competition. John Hood, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, said that the changes would increase transparency and that independent trustees would "draw on appropriate external expertise to establish and maintain the best possible institutional governance to support Oxford's world-class teaching and research".
The university is inviting comments on the proposals and so far sources close to the working party say heads of college are "largely positive". While the authors acknowledge concerns about colleges losing their autonomy, they also hint that this is about survival: "Colleges ultimately cannot function outside the university, and the university cannot function without the colleges."
JOHN HOOD, the new Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, is not wasting time. Just into his second term, he has come up with proposed changes in the university's governance structure on a scale that is breathtakingly bold. It is a high-risk strategy, but there is no choice: to retain its position as one of the world's great universities over the long term, Oxford has to bring its governance into the 21st century.
There are at least three challenges to be tackled. The first lies in a cumbersome decision-making process, whereby the university and the colleges consider their academic affairs on a largely parallel basis. This is not a quick or efficient way of doing business. The result is a culture in which it sometimes seems much easier to say "no" than "yes", and where the comments made by the Franks commission nearly 40 years ago are still highly relevant: the lives of senior members of the university, it observed, are "shot through with dualities of interest, loyalty and workplace".
The second challenge is to do with institutional governance, where Oxford's approach is well short of international best practice. The governing council has 28 members, of whom only four are outsiders, and it has had difficulties in overseeing both academic management and the effective conduct of the university's business. Most universities in the UK and America split these functions between separate bodies. One example of Oxford's weakness in this respect was seen in the trouble it had establishing an effective financial management system. The job was not overseen with sufficient rigour or discipline.
Third, there is a need for improved communications across the academic community. Important reforms in the past half dozen years have much improved Oxford's organisational structure. But one result of a simplified system has been that fewer academics know what is going on outside their direct sphere of interest and, in the words of today's consultation paper, "there is also a lack of familiarity throughout the university with many general issues" relevant to its future.
Rather than proposing incremental change, Dr Hood has decided to go for the Big Bang. Under the proposals which are being put forward for debate, the parallel decision-making process would be swept away. Academic affairs would be integrated under a single academic council which would bring together people from all parts of the collegiate university and allow decisions to be reached more quickly. "Above all," the consultation paper states, "a unified structure should lead to improvement in understanding and trust." The colleges would have an important voice on this council, in the form of a colleges committee. They would elect their own chairman, and be involved in all its decisions. Their legal status and individual autonomy would be unchanged.
Institutional governance of the university would be taken over by an independent board of trustees, a group of 13 outsiders - normally alumni who would bring heavyweight experience and expertise to the oversight of the university's business. They would have no role to play in academic affairs, which would be delegated to the academic council. Like that council, the trustees would operate through a number of committees. One of these, responsible for nominations, would be chaired by the chancellor of the university, and when it came to appointing a new vice-chancellor, the committee would co-opt "a significant number of academic members" to help to make the choice. That would give the process the legitimacy which it must have among the academics.
Changes on this scale are bound to be controversial, especially when much of the detail still has to be filled in. Which issues would the academic council decide by a simple majority vote, and which might require a higher level of support? Would a council of around 150 members really be able to function effectively? Would the trustees not expect to have some kind of influence in academic affairs - if, for example, the academics wanted to build an expensive new department?
But perhaps the two biggest questions are these. Is it right to place so much responsibility in the hands of a board of trustees whose members are not part of the academic community? And is it wise to propose such radical changes in the way that the university runs itself? The answer to the first question is that there are plenty of successful models of trustee-led institutions in Britain and around the world - including among the Ivy League universities in America. Some changes in the governance structure would probably be necessary anyway, thanks to charities legislation now before Parliament. There is no reason to expect that world-class academics can also deliver world-class institutional governance. Provided that the trustees' role is clearly delineated, it must make sense to bring in expertise from the outside.
As for the second question, Oxford will find it very difficult to meet the challenges of the future without bold reforms. The university needs to find significant new sources of finance if is to attract and retain the best talent in the world, and to do this it will have to persuade alumni, private foundations and the taxpayer that its system of governance is beyond reproach. Dr Hood has made a positive impact since his arrival and he is still enjoying a honeymoon period. There will never be a better chance to drive change forward. He deserves to succeed.
Richard Lambert was the author of the Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration for the Treasury
Tim Collins, the Conservative education spokesman, claimed yesterday that Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State, had come to the Commons not to "praise" the Tomlinson report, but to "bury" it. Curiously, his observation was made as a criticism. Ms Kelly is to be congratulated for having rejected a blueprint, lauded by much of the educational establishment, which was an odd mixture of the half-baked (abolishing external marking of GCSEs) and the over-baked (fitting all pupils inside a complex new four-stage diploma). She will doubtless be howled at from many quarters. She has chosen wisely.
...
Schools are not the only education sector where leadership is required. The same applies to universities. John Hood, the new Vice-Chancellor at Oxford, Ms Kelly's alma mater, is preparing to present a series of sweeping and overdue changes to an organisation whose governing structure is an impediment to competing in a global market. Dr Hood's ambitions are endorsed on our comment pages today by Richard Lambert, now serving on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and the author of a widely acclaimed report on improving links between higher education and the business community. Oxford should realise that the moment to act has come.
Neither Ms Kelly nor Dr Hood will have an easy time, and each may feel like a graduate of the school of hard knocks when they have finished attempting to implement their plans. They both deserve the firm support of those who aspire to enhance the quality of education as well as to advance a more open and meritocratic society.
Sir, Nothing in the proposed governance changes at the University of Oxford (report above) would affect the legal status or individual autonomy of the colleges.
The reason we as heads of house support the proposals in the governance consultation document is because they would enable colleges to become more involved at an earllier stage in the academic decision-making process. All 39 college heads would be members of the new academic council.
The result should be faster and better decisions and fewer committees. We believe these proposals would embed colleges much more firmly in decision-making, to the advantage of the collegiate university.
Yours sincerely,
FIONA CALDECOTT
Principal, Somerville College
ROBIN BUTLER
Master, University College
MICHAEL BELOFF
President, Trinity College
Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HD
February 24