JISC seeks to ensure the widest possible dissemination of UK research outputs and through its membership of the Open Access Implementation Group (OAIG) is calling on UK researchers to check their publishing rights.
The OAIG group says: "Recently, some publishers have sought to negotiate directly with universities and research institutes on the terms and conditions under which the authors can deposit manuscripts of their own papers into repositories.
"JISC as part of the OAIG therefore wish to state our concern with publishers who seek to limit access by imposing unacceptable embargo periods on the deposit of authors' manuscripts in local, institutional or subject-based repositories.
"Authors should retain their right to deposit their own manuscripts, and this right should not be dependent on the later agreements to publish agreed with publishers. In particular, publishers should not seek to supersede any agreement between authors and their funders or institutions. These funders and institutions wish to see wide dissemination, with no artificial delays or embargoes – delaying the wider release of research papers for a pre-agreed period of time ie six months.
"Furthermore, where collective arrangements for licensing exist that can already cover these issues (such as in the UK with clauses in the JISC Collections Model Licence), then such direct negotiation with individual universities is doubly unhelpful and risks undermining those collective arrangements.
"The Open Access Implementation Group calls on universities not to enter into one-to-one negotiations with publishers on self-archiving rights for their staff, and instead to rely on publicly declared rights as shown on the Sherpa-RoMEO website."
The OAIG membership includes:
Guild HE, Universities UK, UCL, Wellcome Trust, The University of Salford, The University of Edinburgh, SCONUL, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, Public Library of Science, JISC, Association of Research Managers and Administrators.
Find out more about the work of the OAIG and JISC's work in open access.
via Jisc news
If you would like to contribute to CILIP Update, please read the following guidelines.
1. Editorial valuesCILIP Update is the magazine and journal of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. It’s passionate about libraries, and supports information professionals whose role is to help the public – or their user group – get the best out of the information revolution, online and print resources.
Mission: CILIP Update aims to keep busy library and information professionals and their partners in the supplier community up to date with the issues, policies and technological developments that affect their workplace and professional practice. It’s a useful current awareness tool that informs continuing professional development (CPD), as well as reflecting the concerns and aspirations of the CILIP community.
CILIP Update tries to reflect the broad range of opinions of our members and community in a balanced and responsible way. That means it also reflects CILIP’s own vision, mission and professional ethics, in accordance with the public interest and CILIP’s charitable purpose.
For news items there are no hard and fast criteria other than relevance and significance for our audience of library and information practitioners and their partners, funders and user communities.
We may cover library and information work in all sectors, information resources, knowledge or records management and related technologies, or management, marketing, research awareness, the internet and web technologies, electronic publishing and communications, or relevant social and economic policy matters.
As the journal of a professional body that focuses on professional qualifications, training and CPD, we are also interested in relevant professional education, training, recruitment and employment issues.
Space is tight. We may not always be able to publish all the news and features we are grateful to receive. The editors will always have the final say.
If you think you have news of interest to our readers, contact the Senior Reporter, Rob Green (rob.green@cilip.org.uk) or Products and Services News Editor, Debby Raven (debbyraven@btconnect.com) to discuss. Or send news copy or press releases to update@cilip.org.uk
We commission many feature articles (in depth pieces) to tie in with our editorial agenda (see out list of themes here). If you would like to contribute on any of these or other topics, please contact Update, (update@cilip.org.uk) to discuss your idea, and possible treatment.
If you propose to write for us, ask yourself what would make you want to read on:
1. Are you reporting on something that is currently topical, or ought to be?
2. Has there been anything similar to your proposed piece in recent issues of CILIP Update? (And if there has, how is your piece different?)
3. Does it make a significant point, with implications for practitioners in their jobs, and if so, can you identify how?
4. Does it cast new light on a core concern?
5. Does it solve a problem that is currently exercising your peers?
6. Would it entertain or amuse your fellow professionals?
Remember, we are not a peer-reviewed academic journal. So do cut straight to the chase. Tell readers why they need to read this article. Do not bury ‘the point’ somewhere at the end of the article. We are a practitioner’s journal and busy people will only read on if they know that what they find will inform them – or make them laugh. CILIP Update favours an accessible, direct, clear conversational style of writing.
Feature articles are generally between 800 and 1500 words in length. A column or soapbox piece is 400-500 words.
If you have some interesting material to share with the community, but do not see yourself as a natural author, CILIP Update may be able to work with you. Please contact Update (update@cilip.org.uk) to discuss. Please note that unsolicited articles that do not meet any, or a sufficient number of, editorial criteria may not be accepted for publication. The Editor’s decision is final.
If you supply images, please ensure they are copyright-cleared and that you – and we – have permission to use them. Figures and images can be submitted electronically as jpeg or tif files at a resolution of 300 dpi. Please send them to Production/Design Editor Richard Gibbons richard.gibbons@cilip.org.uk, or the relevant editor, indicating which story they accompany.
Feature articles submitted to the journal should be original work and not under consideration by any other publication at the same time. CILIP Update does not republish articles that have already appeared in other publications for the library and information profession, except in very exceptional circumstances.
CILIP Update requires exclusivity for the first three months of publication, and it requests the option to publish in both print and electronic media. If authors decide to republish the article they have contributed at a later date (for example, on a company intranet, or in another professional body’s journal) we ask that they acknowledge the article’s original publication in CILIP Update.
CILIP Update has a lively letters page. The author of the best letter each month wins a £25 National Book Tokens Gift Card. Please email your letters to Managing Editor Rachel Middleton (rachel.middleton@cilip.org.uk). Word count: up to a maximum of 600 words. We reserve the right to edit letters.
Due to pressure of space and in order for notices to be timely, obituarists should aim to write no more than 500 words (if more is written, contributions may have to be cut). Please supply a high resolution photo if at all possible (hard copies can be scanned in and returned). Please check with Managing Editor Rachel Middleton (rachel.middleton@cilip.org.uk) before writing an obituary so that duplication can be avoided. Contact Rachel for copy deadlines and any queries. The following suggestions for inclusion may be helpful:
Send brief details of new job, and of previous job title and workplace. Photographs are welcome (high resolution, 300 dpi). Send to rachel.middleton@cilip.org.uk If you would like to feature in My Week or My Job, please email Rachel to discuss.
CILIP Update regrets that, because of constraints on space, it only reviews books and resources of direct relevance to the library and information profession. Guidelines are available from Diana Dixon, Honorary Book Reviews Editor – diana.dixon@cilip.org.uk Unsolicited reviews are not accepted.
via RSS Feed
CILIP's A3 size copyright posters are available here to download. The posters advise on what may be copied safely under the 'fair dealing' rules in the UK.
The GOLD poster is intended for display beside photocopying and optical scanning machines.
The BLUE poster covers digital copying including downloading from portable databases and copying from the internet and is for display by computer workstations and printers etc.
We no longer sell the posters.
These posters are only suitable for use within the United Kingdom and should not be displayed in other countries.
CILIP also gives library and information services permission to copy the text of the CILIP posters so long as the integrity of the text is maintained and there is an acknowledgement to CILIP in an appropriate place along the lines of:
"Text © CILIP, 2003. The text is reproduced with kind permission of CILIP: The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals."
As of 31 October 2003, any previously issued Library Association or CILIP posters that you may have by your photocopiers, scanners, printers and computer workstations are out of date.
The European Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), also known as the Copyright Directive, was implemented into UK law in 2003 by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2498).
In particular, this legislation makes changes to the exceptions to copyright which allow for self-copying or downloading using the defence of 'fair dealing'.
Copying for private study
As far as copying for research or private study is concerned, people can only use the defence of copying for research for a non-commercial purpose or for private study. Private study is now defined as not including any study which is directly or indirectly for a commercial purpose.
Where fair dealing, rather than licensed copying, takes place in organisations and library and information services, there may be some possibility that self-copiers infringe copyright. Should this happen, in order to improve protection for library and information services and their employing organisations (such as councils, health authorities, universities and colleges), it is advisable that they display up-to-date posters about fair dealing copying. These can be displayed at places in the library or information centre and also throughout their employing organisations.
via RSS Feed
JISC11 saw over 600 people attend in Liverpool and an additional 270 join us online to make 2011 our most successful conference to date. JISC11 trended on Twitter at one point being one of the most popular hashtags on the internet.
Robert Haymon-Collins JISC director of communications and marketing said: “As the physical conference was taking place the online programme live-streamed to participants unable to attend in person, we essentially ran two conferences; one online and one physical.”
One of the online participants Richard Haggerty, an e-learning technologist, commented on his experience. “Thank you for such an incredible virtual online experience. It is the most effective and useful online event I have yet attended, and the live stream was almost seamless on my laptop. The quality of the guest speakers was, without exception, of the highest quality. And it had a plethora of relevant case studies. I have taken away a lot of ideas for further consideration.”
Watch specific presentations by selecting the i icon (bottom left) and choosing Chapters (top right)
JISC EMBEDDED OBJECT
Mediasite classic player version
via Jisc news
In this section you can find out about all the different ways you can get involved with CILIP
CILIP is an organisation built on the involvement of its members. The opportunity to 'get involved' is open to you all!
There are a variety of ways that you can get involved:
Many areas of our work rely on the expert knowledge of CILIP members. For most areas we recruit volunteers on an 'as required' basis. We advertise on our website and in CILIP publications. But we welcome applications for mentors at any time and candidates for election to CILIP Council, the Office of the President and branch and group committees each autumn.
The links below give more information about ways to get involved in the different areas of CILIP
CILIP activists are key decision-makers at all levels within CILIP. Getting involved is a great opportunity to learn new skills and develop professionally and personally. You also have the chance to build a network that you can carry with your through your career.
Hearing about what other people have done and how much they benefited from the experience is a great way to inspire others. So we welcome your feedback and stories. Send them to getinvolved@cilip.org.uk and with your permission, we will include them on this page.
As an organisation that promotes equal opportunities and diversity, CILIP is keen to encourage members from all backgrounds, including those from under-represented groups within the profession, to consider getting involved.
You may already be actively involved with us. If you’re not or you’re looking for a new challenge, click on the links to read about the ways to get involved in different areas. Check our home page and publications regularly for new opportunities.
If you want to know more about our work, visit the relevant parts of our website or email us:
via RSS Feed
Find out here how you can get involved with CILIP's Qualifications and Professional Development area. Use your library and information professional knowledge as a mentor, regional assessor or member of a board or committee. You can see what requirements, training, support and time commitment are involved for each type of opportunity.
Mentors
CILIP mentors are volunteer professionals with demanding day jobs but willing to give up time to help those working towards CILIP qualifications. The CILIP Mentor Register has over 600 mentors already working with mentees. New mentors are volunteering all the time. They undertake mentor training and are in contact with other mentors to share ideas and issues.
The mentor is an essential role in CILIP’s framework of qualifications. They help mentees realise their own potential through encouragement and direction. Being a mentor involves commitment and responsibility but contributes to your professional development and broadens your network.
REQUIREMENTS: CILIP Chartered Member plus those listed in the job description
TRAINING: Attending mentor training, following mentor process, commitment to mentees
SUPPORT: Mentor discussion list, Mentors on communities of practice
TIME COMMITMENT: Varies, but usually meetings every two months for about a year for each mentee
Regional Assessors
Members of the Qualifications Board assess approximately four hundred applications a year for Certification, Chartership, Fellowship and Revalidation.
Regional Assessors support the work of the Chartership Board and the CILIP Assessment Panel by conducting interviews of Chartership, Certification and Revalidation candidates within their region.
Board and Panel members have the option to ask a candidate to attend an interview if the application does not meet the criteria but is close to doing so. Regional Assessors act as appointees of the Board or Panel to put the questions identified by them to the candidate. They report on the meeting, following agreed guidelines and may make a recommendation regarding the result to the Board or Panel.
REQUIREMENTS: CILIP Certified, Chartered member or Fellow (ACLIP, MCLIP or FCLIP) plus those listed in regional assessor job description
TRAINING: Occasional training or information sessions
SUPPORT: From CILIP Qualifications department staff
TIME COMMITMENT: Varies, could be as little as one interview per year
Click here to see a full role description and to see how to apply to be a Regional Assessor, and you are welcome to send your CV to Michael.Martin@cilip.org.uk or call 020 7255 0625.
Qualifications Board
The Qualifications Board is made up of volunteers who are senior information professionals. Membership of the Board is one of the most challenging and demanding activities that members can undertake. They meet six times a year to discuss Chartership, Fellowship and Fellowship Revalidation applications. If there are vacancies on the Board, these are advertised in Gazette and on the CILIP website.
REQUIREMENTS: CILIP Chartered member or Fellow (MCLIP or FCLIP). Certified Members are also eligible to join and will assess Certification portfolios.
TRAINING: Induction training plus occasional training and development activities
SUPPORT: From CPD department staff
TIME COMMITMENT: Six full day meetings in London a year, plus some additional time outside meetings
Accreditation Board
CILIP accredits undergraduate and postgraduate library and information courses in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Accreditation Board assesses courses submitted for approval and makes decisions on their acceptability. It also assesses training providers and events submitted for recognition, and awards the CILIP Seal of Recognition. If there are vacancies on the Board, these are advertised in Gazette and on the CILIP website.
REQUIREMENTS: Chartered Member of Fellow (MCLIP or FCLIP)
TRAINING: Induction training plus occasional training and development activities
SUPPORT: From Qualifications department staff
TIME COMMITMENT: Four half-day meetings in London a year, plus some additional time outside meetings
via RSS Feed
The mentor is an essential role in CILIP’s framework of qualifications. They are not expected to run training events or instruct the candidates but to help them realize their own potential through encouragement and direction.
"mentor n. experienced and trusted adviser or guide” Oxford English Dictionary.
Candidates and mentors should read the Mentor Scheme Guidelines closely.
If you are already a mentor and would like to give Chartership candidates more information about yourself then you can use CILIP's Communities.
via RSS Feed
The mentor is an essential role in CILIP’s framework of qualifications. They are not expected to run training events or instruct the candidates but to help them realize their own potential through encouragement and direction.
"mentor n. experienced and trusted adviser or guide” Oxford English Dictionary.
Candidates and mentors should read the Mentor Scheme Guidelines closely.
Mentors are listed by region.
If you are already a mentor and would like to give Chartership candidates more information about yourself then you can use CILIP's Communities.
via RSS Feed
The risks and opportunities for library and information services
Read Guy Daines’ latest blog post about the evidence CILIP has submitted to the Public Administration Select Committee's Inquiry into the Big Society:
Libraries, especially public libraries, are often mentioned in association with the Big Society, usually suggesting that volunteers could run local libraries.
As evidence submitted to Select Committees cannot be published, except by them, it is not possible to share CILIP's submission. But a link will be provided from the CILIP website once it has been published. However it is useful to consider some of the issues that were raised when looking at our submission.
But the Big Society should be an agenda that provides exciting opportunities to demonstrate a creative and innovative library and information profession helping communities to take control of their own destinies. We should be able to take a leadership position in it and so build and enhance a reputation of libraries being agents of social change.
However there are also risks attached.
Alternative governance models for public libraries is the subject of one of CILIP's forthcoming executive briefings. It is also a topic CILIP Council will be considering with a view to developing a CILIP policy on the issue. As a charity committed to the "public good" the quality of the library service provided and its responsiveness to local need must be CILIP's overarching concern. But does one governance model provide this more than another? Or should CILIP adopt a more neutral stance over governance structure and focus on important features of governance - accountability of the local authority for the service, transparency of delivery arrangements, strong community engagement, an ethical framework for operation?
These are big challenges to established structures and ways of work. Given the pressures that all library services are facing, change is inevitable. But what should that change entail and what stance should CILIP adopt? The opinions of CILIP members and others will be most valuable in helping to develop answers to those questions. Have your say by leaving a comment on the blog.
via RSS Feed
Warwick Mansell investigates what lies behind the shock resignation of the chief schools adjudicator
In the intimate world of education politics, it came as a major shock. Two weeks ago, Ian Craig, the widely respected official who for almost two years has overseen England's complex and often anxiety-inducing school admissions system, unexpectedly announced plans to stand down.
What lies behind his impending departure as chief schools adjudicator? And what are the wider issues behind school admissions arrangements, which are due to go through a number of what, to critics, are subtle but potentially significant changes in the current education bill?
These reforms appear to be of concern to a diverse group of people, from a headteachers' union to the children's commissioner, governors and charities, and even to Craig himself. Some dissenters claim the changes will hand schools greater power to "covertly" select the pupils they want, and to push out those they do not – typically the disadvantaged. Ministers reject this criticism.
On 10 March, news broke that Craig was going to stand down in October, even though his contract does not end until April next year. A statement from the Department for Education said the early announcement would allow his successor to "get up to speed" before a new admissions process begins next year.
Craig issued a statement to similar effect. However, there is widespread scepticism at this official version of events. The BBC links the departure to comments Craig made last year on government moves to slim down the admissions code. The code is the rulebook governing admissions. Last autumn, ministers said they wanted to "simplify" it, to make the code easier for parents to understand. Craig said this risked "throwing the baby out with the bathwater": simplifying it too much could make it a "useless document".
Did this create an unworkable position for Craig? Education Guardian understands that not only did the chief adjudicator's contract run until next year, but it had the option to be extended for a further three. Something, then, suggested to him, or to ministers, that the time was right to go.
An appearance by Craig in front of the Commons education select committee last month provided further evidence of a difference of opinion with the government. There, Craig mentioned three changes forthcoming in the bill which, he said, he would not make.
First, the adjudicator's powers to investigate and order changes to school admissions policies are being reduced.
Currently, where parents – who made up 92% of the 387 cases considered by the adjudicator last year – or others go to him about an admissions policy, Craig's office has the ability not just to investigate the specific allegation, but to look at the entire policy and order any change it sees fit if it believes a school or local authority is not following the code.
Craig's annual report says parents have complained about the way schools use aptitude tests to select pupils; about admissions authorities drawing up rules for sixth-form entry without consulting; and about faith schools' admissions criteria. His office also upheld a complaint last year from parents in Surrey who said rules there were making it hard for those living in a particular area to gain places.
Craig told the committee this wider investigatory power was used in 43% of cases considered last year, and was very useful. Now, the adjudicator will only be able to take action in relation to the specific allegation made by the complainant, and not to require that an admissions policy changes in a particular way. The government's own notes to the bill say this change "restricts the powers of the school adjudicator".
Second, the bill will see compulsory local admissions forums scrapped. These bodies are made up of parents, headteachers, faith group representatives, and local authority and academy staff, and consider the fairness of admissions arrangements across an area. Local authorities will still be able to establish these groups, but there will be no requirement to do so.
Craig told MPs that admissions forums were needed "more and more" now, with growing numbers of schools moving to become academies that will operate their own admissions policies, rather than policies being set by local authorities with responsibility across an area.
Third, local authorities will no longer be required to provide annual reports to the adjudicator as to how school admissions are working. Craig said this would mean his office "would not be able to maintain an overview" of how admissions were operating nationwide.
The education bill also abolishes the right of parents and pupils to complain to the local government ombudsman when they are unhappy, replacing it with a complaints procedure via the education secretary, Michael Gove.
Craig said he was happy with one change under the bill: to bring the admissions arrangements of academies into the adjudicator's realm, alongside those of traditional state schools.
The mystery as to what is going on is further compounded by the non-appearance of the government's new version of the admissions code. A white paper in November said it would be published "early in the new year", while Education Guardian understands that MPs on the committee scrutinising the bill were told it would be with them for the start of that process. More than two weeks later, it had yet to appear.
All of this begs questions. What is going on with admissions, and why are the adjudicator's powers seemingly being downgraded?
Evidence submitted to the parliamentary committee suggests fears that these moves will lead to power shifting away from parents choosing schools towards schools choosing parents. To the sceptics, the admissions code and adjudication system seek to guard against the risk that schools, anxious to raise their results, do all they can effectively to select middle-class children who are seen as easier to educate.
This has been much debated. Craig himself provoked stories last year that faith schools could favour middle-class parents who might ring church bells or clean the local church, after comments he made on the publication of his annual report about admissions arrangements in a "small number" of institutions. He told MPs he regretted the way his comments had been reported. He said he didn't think many admissions authorities went "out of their way" to evade the code or regulation. But evasion by schools is far from unknown.
One chair of an admissions forum says he is aware of a secondary school that had leafleted parents at "middle-class" primary schools to encourage them to get their children to take an aptitude test to enter the secondary, but not leafleted schools serving council estates. Others had expensive school uniforms, which made it hard for poorer pupils.
Maggie Atkinson, the children's commissioner, has already been reported as warning, in oral evidence to the committee scrutinising the bill, that its changes risked "adding to the social segregation and stratification of schools".
Written evidence submitted to the committee from organisations including Save the Children, Mencap, the admissions campaign group Comprehensive Future, Oxfordshire Governors' Association and Accord – a coalition of faith and non-faith groups – make similar points.
Sir Alan Steer, the Labour government's behaviour adviser, wrote: "Most school leaders behave honourably and in accordance with the admissions code. Some do not, and in a culture of high accountability it is naive to assume that poor practice will not increase."
Even the Association of School and College Leaders, which represents institutional managers, said in evidence: "We are concerned that there may now be a void in policing admissions".
An admissions source alleges that ministers are deliberately seeking to make it easier for schools to favour middle-class pupils. The source says: "People running schools want to be able to select the nice kids who are easier to teach, and to keep out the 'oiks'. These changes will make it easier for them to do that."
Ruth Greenan, a parent on East Sussex's admissions forum, says: "If admissions forums go, we are going to see an explosion in the numbers of children who are vulnerable missing out."
Asked for his own explanation for the changes, Craig told MPs the government simply wanted to trust admissions authorities more. Cost factors have also been put forward. Craig's office cost £920,000 last year, employing 16 staff, although critics say this is relatively small – 85 civil servants are working on the government's free schools policy, it was revealed last week.
A Department for Education spokesman says: "The bill does not erode the adjudicator's powers. Parents will still be able to make complaints about any aspect of school admissions they feel are unfair, and the adjudicator retains the power to investigate those complaints. The adjudicator is [also] being given more power through his new role in considering academy admissions as well as those for maintained schools. Ministers are clear that admissions must be fair. We will make the admissions code simpler, fairer and more transparent, and reduce its bureaucracy so that it is easier for schools and parents to understand. We will launch a consultation shortly."
Craig himself could not be reached for comment, meaning this riddle has no definitive answer. But admissions is an aspect of education policy that is certainly worth watching.
Speakers at Guardian Higher Education summit were surprisingly upbeat about the financial health of the sector, even as their grants were being slashed
If delegates to the Guardian's Higher Education Summit in London last week had been expecting a gloomy start to the event, they were wrong. While elsewhere all but five universities in England were hearing that their grants were being slashed and MPs were warning about the effects of immigration changes on the international student market, Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, was surprisingly chipper. Higher education was in a strong position when a high skills, high research-based economy was the only option for the future, he said. Demand for HE remained strong, with 98% of mothers of children born in 2000 wanting a university education for their child. And the moneywas OK too, with funding increasing, not decreasing, he said. "When I see ministers, they say, 'What are you complaining about?'"
The universities minister, David Willetts, was equally upbeat, insisting students were still quids in, in spite of increased fees. The employment rate for university graduates was far higher than for those with lower-level qualifications, lifetime earnings of graduates were higher than for non-graduates, and graduates were in the best position to make the most of the early stages of recovery in the labour market. "The perception that going to university is a bad deal is wrong," he said.
Even Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, said all was not yet lost. "We should remember that all that has passed through parliament so far is that the two fee caps should be £6,000 and £9,000," he said. "Everything else is still to be decided."
But, as became increasingly clear during the summit, HE is becoming a market, and in a market it doesn't do to be too gloomy or you could put off the customers.
Smith's main concern was that all the talk of high fees and debts could deter students from poorer backgrounds who might think university is not for them. He called on universities to work with the NUS to get across the message that students would not have to pay upfront.
Porter said overseas institutions with courses delivered in English were already planning how to attract bright UK school-leavers unwilling to study in the most expensive public university system in the world, while other speakers and delegates expressed fears that downbeat reporting of what was happening in the UK could affect the UK's recruitment of international students.
"Welcome to my world," said Carl Lygo, chief executive of the private higher education provider BPP Holdings. He said his was a world of uncertainty, in which he never knew how many students he would have from one year to the next, or how many resources he would have to support them. But he insisted that it was a world in which it was possible to prosper.
With growing demand for higher-level skills there was plenty of room for everyone, he said – FE, private providers and public universities. But old ways of working would have to change. "I look at universities that are effectively transferring their cost base on to students and not addressing that cost base, and I think that's dangerous," he said. "What I worry about is whether we are continuing to build mausoleums to a 19th-century method of learning." Instead, he predicted a bigger role for more alternative and flexible ways of studying, away from the traditional campus university.
Other speakers made clear that these kinds of changes were happening already. The summit was billed "2011 A Year of Transition, 2012 A Year of Unknowns", but, as Jeremy Lindley, director of finance at the University of Exeter, put it, "The sector has been transitioning for many years", and for those institutions that have not embraced change it is a bit late to start.
This year, universities find themselves in a financial gap between falling revenues from the funding councils and income from graduate contributions, which will only arrive in the 2012-13 academic year. But many have already reduced costs, increased incomes, created cash balances and negotiated with the banks, and Lindley is confident that most will meet the year with strong finances. Options did still remain for those who were less prepared, he said, although these did not include staff cuts or outsourcing services, which would take too long. Nor would appealing to alumni provide a quick fix, since: "I'm not sure that alumni are generally convinced by requests for money to save us from insolvency." More uncertain, he said, is how universities will position themselves under the new system.
While Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrats' deputy leader and the government's advocate for access to education, begged them to keep fees low – "If you can, do. If you think you cannot, try harder," he pleaded – all the evidence, and inclinations, presented at the summit seemed to point to fees at the higher end of the scale.
Anna Vignoles, professor of the economics of education at the Institute of Education, said there was bound to be a certain amount of gamesmanship in the early years of the new system as universities gauged what their competitors would be charging. But she said she expected a high proportion to plump for the maximum.
"This isn't even close to a market system," she said. "It's massively limited by the large subsidy that comes alongside the fee." Because much of the debt would be written off, students would be less sensitive to whether fees were £7,000 or £9,000.
Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said huge latent demand for HE meant that the government would either have to moderate the level of fees or regulate the number of students eligible for university, neither of which would be consistent with the free market ideology underpinning its policy. His address ended the summit on a less cheery note. HE is in a bind, he said. "These are extraordinary times."
Steve Smith explains why the university landscape is not apocalyptic
This year's Hefce funding announcement was made the day after the summit. Let me be absolutely clear, while UUK supports Hefce completely in its attempts to smooth the transition to the new funding regime, there can be no doubt at all that these cuts, a year before the new source of funding comes on stream, are damaging.
The fact that institutions are now having to plan how to deal with real-terms reductions averaging about 7% in their Hefce grant is going to colour the debate about the new funding regime. This, in turn, encourages a number of myths that tend to go unchallenged and, in my contribution to the summit, I tried to look at some of these. I will deal with the two most controversial.
While I do not wish to minimise the problems the Hefce funding announcement will cause, I do think it is important to be clear as to the trajectory of the funding regime over the next four years.
The first myth is that funding for higher education has been reduced. As president of Universities UK, I argued long and hard that the government must not leave universities with a massive gap in funding, which was a very real danger. The HE sector has done better than any other area in receipt of public funding. This is so according to two separate measures: how much do institutions receive, and how much cash does government outlay on HE?
On the first measure, if we assume an average fee level of £7,500 (and many expect it to be higher), the HE sector receives about 10% more cash by 2014.
As for the second measure, more surprisingly, actual outlay on HE increases significantly as a result of the changes to the ways in which funding is routed. While funding to Hefce reduces by about £3bn by 2014, public spending on fees and maintenance loans is expected to increase by about £4.3bn – and spending on student grants is also likely to increase by about £0.6bn. This equates to an increase of about £2bn in public spending on HE by 2014.
That is a truly radical shift that is driven by a clear political aim: to introduce more market incentives into the system. Those market drivers mean that universities have to be clear that we offer a high-quality product, and we have to be clear that we are providing skills and experiences that will directly benefit the student.
The second myth concerns the funding of the humanities and social sciences. Whereas it is common to claim that they are no longer being funded, the reality is that they are being funded at least as fully, but via a different route for teaching funding. On research funding, the research councils have had their cash allocation preserved, and quality-related research funding has not only been cut by a much lower percentage than teaching funding, but it has also been cut across the board.
I do not think that the sector faces financial meltdown. The current climate is tough, with cuts to funding that will drive difficult decisions even before the new funding regime kicks in. But, overall, the landscape does not look apocalyptic.
The obvious worry, of course, is that the new system of funding will mean that we face a form of financial apartheid both in access to HE and in the financial fortunes of institutions operating in different parts of the sector. Avoiding both of these outcomes should be the criteria on which we are now judged. No one should be deterred from going to university by fear of the costs. Worst of all would be for anyone to be deterred by a misunderstanding about the costs.
One thing is clear: that quietly wishing nothing will change is not an option. I have great confidence in our university leadership teams and, once again, in the quality of what we offer students. I have confidence that students will continue to see the value of that offer once the new funding regime is in place.
We need the government to make the right choices to support participation and develop skills. But, as the political storm passes, we should aim to create a university system that is even more relevant and even better equipped to deliver the best possible higher education to the students of tomorrow.
• Professor Steve Smith is president of Universities UK, the vice-chancellors' body
Students will be more selective and demanding while universities will have to retain fair access despite option to charge higher fees
Students were a rare sighting at the Guardian Higher Education Summit, but that did not stop their needs dominating discussions. Delegates' main concerns were how to attract more of them, how to attract different kinds of them, and how to work out what they would want out of university once they got there.
Most speakers were relaxed about the number of people likely to aspire to a higher education in future, in spite of rising fees. Much more of a concern was how best to respond to pressure from the government to attract a broader range of students.
"Widening participation has been a great success in this country," said Martin Harris, director of the Office for Fair Access. "Our universities have done exceptionally well ... But fair access has been less of a success."
The main reason students from non-traditional backgrounds did not have the same access as others to the top universities, he said, was attainment. The real work on access, therefore, had to be done in schools. "Curricula choice at 14, independent advice at that stage, and choice at 16 can have decisive effects on young people and their capacity to be candidates at 18," he said.
Simon Hughes, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats and the government's advocate for access, said he measured HE policies against how they would go down among young people on the Old Kent Road, part of his London constituency. A bursary to help with living costs may not affect their choice of where to study but it would certainly help them. He was working on a way of getting the kind of career advice Harris advocates into every school. Mentors had an important part to play, while universities needed to be collectively responsible for students in their region. The HE bill offered a chance to slip in measures that would improve fair access further, he said. "We shouldn't preclude having additional requirements on universities to do more."
So, universities are not to be let off the hook. Nor will they get an easy time from those students who do make it to university under the new marketised system, warned Aaron Porter, president of the NUS. He said increased fees meant students were already demanding more information about what they could expect from university.
But for all their hi-tech savvy, said Peter Slee, deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Huddersfield, what most counted for students was contact with people. By far the biggest influence on choice of university, according to the Student Barometer online survey of 6,000 students, was a university visit. Like buying a house, said Slee, decisions about where to go to university are made "with the heart first and the head second". Or, as Wellings put it: "The student experience is a body-contact sport."
Students are choosing the careers that pay because this government has put financial considerations at the heart of students' decisions about higher education, says Jonathan Black
David Willetts's speech to the summit echoed the point that I and others made last year that employability skills, however they are learned, are more important for securing a job than academic qualifications alone. He and this government have put financial considerations at the heart of students' decisions on HE; he should not be surprised when students select their careers on the same financial basis.
At a recent conference in Oxford, a senior manager of a blue-chip European engineering company stated that his organisation has a "huge and dire need for skilled people" and "could not recruit the talent it needed from the developed world". The students are voting with their feet: engineering companies pay about £25,000 starting salaries, whereas City firms pay £35,000 to £45,000. Having set the rules and acknowledged that poorer students are more debt averse than others, the government really cannot be surprised if the consequence is that students select the fastest career option to pay off their unwelcome debt. The primary solution for engineering companies is simple: if they offer market rates they will probably attract more talent. It appears that the industry has learned little; I recall similar arguments among engineers 30 years ago.
The minister appeared frustrated that certain groups, notably those studying Stem (science, technology, engineering, maths) subjects, are not advancing to Stem careers. He could plug what he called the "leaky Stem pipe" by taking specific financial action to help relevant organisations to compete for those otherwise destined for the City. The familiar argument applied to top management in banks about having to "pay the best to get the brightest" could be applied to scientists and mathematicians. One could argue that government investment in companies working on climate change, transport, energy and healthcare is at least as important for this country's economy and wellbeing as its recent investment in financial services.
The minister praised the idea of "transparent systems", which include Hefce's proposals for universities to publish a key information set, including initial salaries by subject. Not only does this underline the government's reduction of HE to a financial transaction, it is founded on unreliable and unusable data that is irrelevant to anyone in a decision-making position. The salary data will have come from the destination census of all leavers, six months after leaving university, and is unreliable not only because it is unaudited but also because it is incomplete. It is unusable because the average salary represented (even with quartile figures) can mask huge variations: students who studied history could be working for a museum on £12,000 or for a bank on £42,000. The data is irrelevant because the only people who might change their behaviour are those selecting their A-levels. Is Hefce seriously suggesting that year 9 pupils study the salaries of people eight years older and somehow decide to become good at physics as it pays better than those who read history?
The minister pleaded that "Stem undergraduates do need an opportunity to consider Stem jobs"; any university careers service will confirm the wealth of opportunity and guidance available for all students to explore the entire job market, including Stem jobs. The conclusion we are left with is that students are choosing something else, in all likelihood because it pays better.
It is both telling and unfortunate that he chose to champion the example of KPMG sponsoring more students to do an accountancy qualification – from his speech, one would have inferred that diverting Stem students to the City was precisely what he wanted to avoid.
For a student, university is for self-development and a love of further study in a subject that fascinates them. It is a place to develop transferable skills to last a lifetime. Tutors do not want students focused solely on what salary they are going to get – those students, though playing to the government's new set of rules, will probably miss the point.
• Jonathan Black is director of the careers service at Oxford University
David Robinson explains how the Guardian's Teacher Network could raise the awareness of children and improve their understanding of global events
The earthquake and tsunami in Japan have heightened awareness of the power and unpredictable nature of tectonic processes. Natural disasters have long been part of the curriculum, but, for pupils living in a remarkably safe country, the topics can lack immediacy and relevance.
As teachers and parents, we want our children to understand major global events – they help raise awareness of other places, cultures and lifestyles, and introduce the concepts of empathy and global communities. Events such as those unfolding in Japan provide specific, topical examples of how the planet influences our lives.
Reacting to world events and incorporating them into lessons while they are still "hot topics" has always been a challenge, and that is one of the factors behind the Guardian's new Teacher Network, which provides teachers with reliable, original resource materials that are simple to use.
Twenty-two years ago, I had to deliver a lesson on earthquakes and tsunamis. The grainy images of the 1923 Kanto quake in my class textbooks were not going to grab my year 9s' attention. The Loma Prieta quake had just struck California, and that provided the opportunity for an update. A weekend searching the fledgling internet resulted in a newsroom simulation I could run alongside a videotape of the BBC news and a pile of newspapers. My class loved it, but the time and effort involved in research made it a one-off project.
The new Teacher Network aims to collate the sort of resources I spent an entire weekend finding, and to deliver them to teachers, parents and students. I set about searching its 70,000 pages of selected resources to create a lesson based on tectonic terror – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. How long would it take me?
My lesson theme was: if disaster struck, where would you rather be – caught in an earthquake coping with a volcanic eruption, or facing a tsunami? In less than a minute, I was logged in and ready to go.
Selecting "Find resources" from the menu bar presented a range of materials, a search box and a list of subject titles. I started with a search for a tectonic map of Japan and was rewarded with exactly what I wanted: a full-colour map showing Japan, the recent earthquake epicentre and the sea floor, complete with fault lines. A quick click on "Add to my resources", and the first resource was safely stored away for later use. The physical and human geography of Japan proved equally easy to resource by selecting a lesson package.
A closer look at a lesson on earthquakes for 11- to 14-year-olds yielded some great photographs and even animations. A click of the "Download lesson components" button, and these individual elements were easily viewed and saved into my files for later use. A lesson on building volcanoes for primary schools provided animations on tectonic plates and earthquake zones, and major volcano sites. Users are asked to add their tag to the element they are downloading to help others.
Two hot-off-the-presses resources from learnnewsdesk (the Guardian's subscription-based news service for 9‑ to 14-year-olds, which feeds into the Guardian Teacher Network) addressing Japan's earthquake, complete with video stills, suggested classroom activities, and the essential facts rounded off my research for Japan – and I was barely a third of the way through my first mug of coffee.
I also found Guardian video resources that will really get students thinking: "We lost everything in a split second", and a more uplifting rescue story about a couple who were saved after being trapped for four days.
I wanted to cover NGOs' response to disasters, and found a useful resource by the Red Cross education team looking at the loss of life, damage and personal suffering, and the dignity of those who survived the earthquake. NGOs are putting up their own resources on the network, which makes it easier to see what is out there quickly.
Thinking back to my original lesson on the Loma Prieta earthquake, I felt inspired to share a few resources of my own. The "Create resources" tab makes it easy for teachers to add their own material in a variety of formats. Or they can download one of the range of templates or upload a weblink to existing material.
The Teacher Network benefits from contemporary news items as well as educational materials. Resourcing a contemporary news story is one thing, but would locating older and less newsworthy events prove to be another?
A teacher-submitted webpage covering the Mount St Helens eruption of 1980 quickly joined the collection, and, thanks to the Guardian's archive, two newspaper articles describing the aftermath of the 1977 and 2002 eruptions of Mount Nyiragongo followed shortly afterwards.
While reviewing my resources, a hitherto unappreciated bonus came to mind: I knew the origins, factual reliability and copyright status of every resource I'd selected. There was no need to spend the next two hours checking everything. Here is a free, reliable and safe resource where pupils can research homework, augment revision and develop case studies.
• David Robinson runs geography projects in schools and is a resources writer. See David Robinson's finished material on the Guardian Teacher Network
Reform the tax system to ensure employers provide work-related training and state funds are used for improving workers' skills, says Tom Wilson
Companies received more than £5bn last year from the exchequer in tax relief for work-related training. That is equivalent to the turnover of more than 250 FE colleges. It vastly overshadows the £50m growth and innovation fund set up to support employers' initiatives to improve skills and boost jobs. But, as a forthcoming research paper by Howard Reed of Landman Economics, commissioned by unionlearn, shows, there is little to indicate that this vast sum is focused on the most effective training courses, or that it is reaching those who most need it. It is an area the TUC's learning and skills organisation hopes will be addressed in the forthcoming budget.
The £5bn also vastly overshadows the £800m annual budget of Train to Gain, the scheme that provided businesses with training subsidies, until it was abolished in the October 2010 spending review. Train to Gain had its faults, but it did make a substantial contribution to work-related training. Apart from commitments (without detail) in the spending review to "explore mechanisms to increase employer contributions such as training levies", we still need a strategy for growth that tackles the two main problems with the UK's provision of work-related training: that a third of employers provide no training at all and that those who receive the most training are those who are already the best qualified.
Unionlearn's paper concludes that there are very strong grounds for reforming the tax relief system by making it more progressive – targeting the low-paid and low skilled – and more focused on high returns (by restricting training to that which leads to qualifications or accreditation).
Tax relief on training is available only to companies that pay corporation tax (just over 900,000 businesses with 8.3 million staff). However, the tax relief is not targeted on particular kinds of training, or particular types of trainee. This makes it a relatively expensive way of encouraging the types of training policymakers might see as the most beneficial.
Statistics from the labour force survey show that while lower skilled workers are less likely to be offered training, when they are, it often leads to a qualification. Therefore, one option could be to offer tax relief only on training that leads to accreditation. This would be very popular with the chancellor as it would mean a saving of about £4.5bn. This saving could be used to allow businesses to claim tax relief on national insurance contributions for employees who undertake training, providing financial support for training to all employers, including public, voluntary, and private sector organisations that do not make enough net profit to pay corporation tax.
One of the main difficulties for Reed's investigation was the paucity of government statistics on the value of tax relief. He says: "If tax returns were amended so businesses had to provide an estimate for the total training undertaken by their employees over the tax year, it would be possible to produce a very accurate aggregate measure of the value of tax relief."
In these financially straitened times it is vital that sums such as £5bn can be used to make a real difference to the training of employees and the productivity of businesses. It should also be a requirement of employers to publish details of their training investment in their annual report so that shareholders can see to what extent the company is investing in its future human capital.
We at unionlearn want to work with ministers to make this money work.
• Tom Wilson is director of unionlearn
A 21st-century education must surely look different from that of 30 years ago, says Estelle Morris
The political dividing lines in education have never been entirely consistent. Attitudes to public investment and to selection have remained cornerstones of party differences, but, as Labour championed the academies programme with its private sector partnerships and the Conservatives talk about closing the social class achievement gap, each party encroaches on the other's traditional territory.
As the government moves from words to actions and the Labour policy review concludes, I've no doubt that the direction of each party will become clearer and the differences between them sharper. There are some early signs of at least part of the upcoming battle ground.
Given the importance the parties place on teaching quality and school leadership, the political debate surprisingly centres on what we teach not how we teach. Even before its curriculum review reports, the government has abandoned vocational diplomas and vocational equivalence qualifications; launched the English baccalaureate and dropped subject specialisms. In response, the shadow education secretary, Andy Burnham, has firmly positioned Labour against the English bac and in favour of a broader curriculum.
Three questions seem to shape this debate. First, which subjects are relevant – should science and design be favoured over Latin and ancient history? Second, which subjects are more likely to engage a generation used to multimedia and personalised communication? Third, which subjects will give young people progression to top universities or good quality employment?
Relevance, engagement and progression are good questions to ask, but the political interpretation of them has created a rather old fashioned "traditionalist"/"progressive" divide.
Michael Gove's analysis seems to push him to a curriculum of yesteryear. He is passionate about history and Greek; he would go to the wall in favour of team games over individual sports but is not likely to defend sociology or drama – and I can't imagine the phrase, "cross curricular theme", passing his lips.
He defends an important principal of the original national curriculum. Every child is entitled to be taught the "traditional" subjects; a curriculum of high expectations; the key to future success.
Yet Burnham asks himself the same questions and comes to quite different conclusions. He makes a powerful case for the study of technology and for valuing the arts, business and economics. He warns against a return to selection through the curriculum. He embraces those subjects and disciplines that Gove seems to turn his back on.
Over 20 years of a national curriculum, we have juggled the need to limit the size of the compulsory curriculum with the ever growing demand on pupils to master more areas of knowledge and skills.
Yet for good or ill, we are still wedded to the traditional hierarchy of subjects, and it colours all our debates. Economists may tell us that the creative industries are the fastest growing sector; employers may talk about needing graduates with "soft" skills; we all like to support the importance of vocational subjects or work experience, but how much do we really rate the subjects that stand the best chance of teaching these skills? Sometimes we value a subject, but doubt its currency.
I'm not pretending all subjects are equally difficult; neither would I want to see "traditional" subjects lose their place in the curriculum. Yet our society has had to adapt to a period of enormous change and come to terms with new areas of knowledge such as technology and digital media, new social challenges such as globalisation and community fragmentation and new threats such as climate change and terrorism.
It would be bizarre if our children didn't learn about these things in school. Sometimes a "modern" curriculum has lacked the rigour of its "traditional" counterpart and there is no excuse for that; but any 21st- century education that stakes a claim to be relevant, engaging and leading to good-quality progression would surely look different to the one that served us so well some 30 years ago.
• The following correction was printed in the Guardian's corrections and clarifications column on 23 March 2011: Homophone corner: "He defends an important principal of the original national curriculum."
Academic status - a good offer from a charitable trust, can private schools train state school teachers and the review of primary education
Warwick Mansell's article on CfBT Education Trust's invitation to schools in Lincolnshire to consider membership of the CfBT Schools Trust requires further comment (Backdoor privatisation? 15 March).
For some years CfBT has not sought to pursue the possibility of academies in Lincolnshire because of our role running the School Improvement Service for the county. However, with the government encouraging schools to convert into academies we reconsidered our position. Lincolnshire schools were receiving regular approaches from academy groups of which they had little knowledge. It seemed unhelpful to deny them the possibility of working with an organisation that they and the local authority know well.
CfBT is not a private firm attempting to push its own agenda. We are a charitable enterprise dedicated to improving school performance. We are proud to be able to offer schools the opportunity to explore CfBT's approach. The choice, however, remains with them. Schools that choose to stay within local authority control will receive the same high-quality service that they have received from CfBT for the past nine years.
Neil McIntosh
CfBT Education Trust, Reading
• As one of the parents, it is just awful to feel as though we have no options. I am glad that this country has newspapers such as the Guardian to express the views of the people.
enigma77 via EducationGuardian.co.uk
Last week Liz Lightfoot reported on private schools that are lining up to become training schools
Both my children are at a private school. The teachers there are good but not outstanding - frankly, they don't have to be. Teaching a class of 12 with masses of support staff is not a stretch. A number of my friends teach in the state sector and I would guess they would be much better placed to train the next generation of teachers.
suffolkswede via EducationGuardian.co.uk
Robin Alexander's enthusiasm (Give all the children the riches they deserve, 15 March) for a comprehensive primary curricular entitlement is admirable, but may come to be seen as politically naive and professionally reactionary. He fails adequately to distinguish between the national curriculum, to be prescribed in statute, and the wider school curriculum, developed by teachers. He runs the risk of encouraging state prescription.
Michael Gove, to his credit, seems to want to limit state prescription, offering the potential for schools and teachers to create for themselves and their pupils a broad, rich curriculum. The key issue is not the nature of the curriculum but who invents most of it – the state or the teaching profession. Given the history of primary curriculum "reform" by the state over the past 20 years, with its constant changes to rectify its own mistakes and its doubtful contribution to improving the quality of learning, it's time for more localism and professional innovation.
Professor Jim Campbell
University of Warwick
• I fear Robin Alexander may have been misled. He states that the "curriculum review is being undertaken at the Department for Education by an advisory committee supported by an "expert panel" of senior academics." The letter setting up the review explictly states that its work "will be managed by the Department" and that the advisory committee is to "guide the review and help to frame recommendations". Make no mistake. This review is being undertaken by civil servants with the help of academics and others. It is not a review by an advisory committee. This is not the independent fundamental review the English national curriculum needs.
Professor Colin Richards
Spark Bridge, Cumbria
A professor researching the minefield of girls' friendships is shocked by teachers' lack of awareness
Naomi and Emily are 11 and quick to define a good friend as someone who is honest. Then the conversation becomes complicated. "If I had an argument with Emily, I might say something I don't really mean and she might not like me, but we'd still want to be friends. It could be hard," says Naomi. "Sometimes you feel like you're going to break," says Emily.
She pauses and Cindy joins in. She is 10. "Some friends are hard to keep – the ones that don't really talk to you, and talk about you to other people."
We are at Cobourg primary school, a Victorian building just off London's Old Kent Road, and these are year 6 children. These little girls, soon to face the crucial rite of passage to big school, seem bewildered by the reality of having friends. Asked about the positives of friendship, they have talked instead about the unhappiness it can bring. "Friends can be bullies to your other friends because they don't want you to be with them," says Naomi.
Professor Rosalyn George was nine when a girl in her class announced, "I don't like Rosalyn today." Rosalyn was duly ostracised by all her friends. "None of them would talk to me, it was painful," George says. "Then you go into school the next week and the girl who excluded you would say that she doesn't like Lorraine today, and you're so relieved it's not you that you don't talk to Lorraine. It was my way of staying in the group."
Now professor of education and director of the centre for identities and social justice at Goldsmiths, University of London, George has researched the precariousness of young girls' friendships in a rare study of girls aged 10-14 as they transferred to secondary school. She watched them in the playground, and spoke to their teachers and parents, and the girls kept diaries.
"Primary school girls tend to be regarded as compliant, getting along," George says. "I thought this wasn't right, and what I found is that young girls will hang on to the leader of a friendship group even if the relationship is destructive. The leaders are invariably bright, socially skilled and charismatic and they have an unquestioning following because for the girls on the periphery the alternative is being isolated, having no one to talk to, no one to play with. No one challenges the leader, who controls the group and sets a moral code based on loyalty. If you break that, you're out. You'd rather stay in the group than risk being lonely."
The dynamics change with greater maturity at secondary school, George notes. "One of the girls said that when she got to her new school she looked around and saw who the noisy group were, and kept away. Girls are better able to assess what's going on as they get older, they can see the potential for destructive situations, so they develop skills to make sure the painful things don't happen. They're more careful about who they make friends with.
"The leader may find that she gradually loses popularity and power, and is marginalised. At primary school you're in one class so you can control events. At secondary school, when you're in different classes for different subjects, you have less control."
What shocked George was her observation that some teachers don't recognise the damage created by manipulative friendships. "The girls who are leaders can dupe teachers too," she says. "Teachers want to share these girls' popularity so they acclaim their excellent work to the head, and they don't see that the leader has marginalised her peers and that as a teacher they're reinforcing that. Often a leader will make girls look bad – perhaps by saying another girl wants all her attention and she wants to be friends with everybody – so that she looks good. That's when you get talking behind backs, note passing, cyber bullying.
"Yet I found that some schools are more concerned with girls understanding the layout of the school than social arrangements. Teachers need to be aware that if girls are unhappy, this can stop them learning."
Dr Anne Hudson is headteacher at Langley Park school for girls in Beckenham, Kent, one of the schools where George did her research. Well aware of George's point, she expects her staff to recognise and deal with friendship problems, and the school makes counselling available to girls with serious emotional difficulties. "Women are carers and this means that girls' sense of identity and self worth is partly dependent on the feedback they get from their peers," Hudson says. "They don't learn well when they're unhappy so an emotional issue can mean they start underachieving."
Maria, a calm and shy girl of 12, is a pupil there and is now able to protect herself from bullying, she says. "At primary school, people said things that weren't true. I wouldn't stand up for myself and I didn't feel there was anyone else I could be friends with – I don't know why. There's one girl who blanks me even though I haven't done anything. I've moved away from her and her friends now."
Another pupil, Beth, almost 14, is composed and confident. "It's easier to recognise the nicer people because everyone is growing as a person," she says. "I think more about what I say. One girl told the teacher my friend had hit her, and she hadn't. I had to step in and say the truth."
At Cobourg primary, Naomi, Emily and Cindy have been counselled about friendship by Sue Burgess, who works in a brightly coloured eyrie at the top of the school. She is a project manager for The Place2Be, a charity that provides emotional help in 172 British schools located in areas where children need extra support to thrive. In 2009-10, 43% of the charity's group counselling involved friendship, and 77% of the 20,000 children involved were girls.
"When girls fall out they shut down," says Burgess. "Their lives here are dominated by friendships, and teaching them how to negotiate them is giving them survival skills. If there's stress at home and they see arguing as a way of communicating, that is played out in their friendships. I get them to think about their feelings and then they can learn about respecting each other and feeling safe. I can usually persuade the stronger voices to quieten down and the quieter girls to start speaking up. Then they start to get it."
Children's names have been changed
• Professor George will be giving a lecture on her work at Goldsmiths, University of London. For details about Professor George's lecture contact inaugurals@gold.ac.uk or 020 7919 7033 for free entry
A new proposal to allow college lecturers to teach in schools is highlighting the inequality in pay and conditions between schools and FE
The suggestion delighted the FE sector: according to the government, college lecturers are as qualified as schoolteachers and should no longer be barred from teaching in schools.
The education secretary, Michael Gove, wasted no time in backing Professor Alison Wolf's proposal that staff with qualified teacher learning and skills (QTLS) should be able to work in schools.
The recommendation, part of Wolf's review into the future of vocational education, is mainly designed to make it easier for 14- to 16-year-olds to study extra subjects without having to be bussed to colleges.
But unions representing schoolteachers are not so happy, claiming any change in workforce regulations will drive down pay and disregard training that staff undertake to gain qualified teacher status (QTS).
Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, says the government is aiming for a "freefall", where school heads and governors could employ anyone they wish. "We would be bringing in people to do the same job on extremely different pay and conditions with different professional standards," she says.
Amanda Brown, assistant secretary for employment conditions at the National Union of Teachers, says: "To teach in a school, you would expect people to have different training. It's a different age group with different pedagogical issues."
An estimated 63,000 teenagers study part-time in colleges, often for half or one day a week. Classes are generally held in colleges because their workshops and other facilities are more suited for vocational courses.
As the law stands, lecturers with QTLS cannot run classes in a school, although staff with QTS may teach in colleges. In her report, Wolf says greater teacher mobility will increase collaboration between schools and colleges. Institutions would set mutually agreed prices for teaching that is outsourced, or bought in, so that funding follows the student or, in some cases, the student's teacher.
It is the prospect of a competitive market for post-14 teachers that horrifies some unions. "There is a danger that people with QTLS could be exploited," says Keates. "The long game is to create a market where people with QTLS come in [to schools] and are paid lower rates."
But the University and College Union, which represents FE lecturers, says it has no intention of undercutting school teachers by accepting lower pay. Instead, Wolf's proposal demonstrates the need for lecturers to be paid in line with school staff at pre-16 and post-16 level.
According to UCU figures, lecturers are generally paid at least 5% less than schoolteachers, although rates vary in colleges. If anything, the gap is widening, with teachers receiving a 2.3% rise in each of the past two years, while lecturers were awarded 1.5% in 2009-10 and just 0.2% this year.
While it is a long-standing UCU policy to see QTLS recognised by schools, Barry Lovejoy, its national head of FE, accepts the other unions' concerns. "We will have further discussions with our sister organisations and hopefully develop a united approach that avoids what we agree is a government strategy to drive down pay and conditions," he says.
The Association of Colleges (AoC) sees the tension over lecturers working in schools as further proof that the funding gap at post-16 level must be closed. Colleges currently receive an average of £280 less per student than school sixth forms.
The government is committed to closing this gap by 2015 by basing post-16 funding on student numbers rather than the qualifications studied. While this would bring post-16 into line with funding for pre-16 students, it would generally mean schools receive less money.
Under Wolf's proposal, 14- to 16-year-olds would only be able to spend 20% of time on non-core subjects, suggesting the maximum a lecturer with vocational expertise would be employed by a school is one day per week.
But Joy Mercer, director of policy at the AoC, doubts that this will happen much, as it normally suits staff and students for lessons to take place in colleges, which draw students from a number of schools. "It's unusual to have enough students in one school taking the same vocational subject," she says.
Regardless of where classes are held, the Institute for Learning (the professional body for post-16 teachers) says QTLS must gain parity with QTS as a point of principle. Depending on the course, theory classes might be held in a school and more practical lessons in a college. "The real winners will be young people," says its chief executive, Toni Fazaeli. "Flexible movement is in the interest of young people, who will have the chance to learn in both settings."
The government says it has no intention to merge QTS and QTLS and that any changes to teaching regulations would require legislation following consultations. The Department for Education is expected to publish its full response to the Wolf report in the next couple of weeks.
The Association for Teachers and Lecturers, which represents staff in schools and FE, is happy for schools to employ staff with QTS or QTLS providing they are paid the same. As many lecturers work part-time, there would be nothing to stop them from having separate contracts with a college and a school. "They would be doing a particular sort of teaching in a school and be paid for it," says Martin Freedman, the ATL's head of pay and conditions.
The introduction of lecturers into schools also has the backing of the Association of School and College Leaders. Martin Ward, the ASCL's deputy general secretary, says it might be necessary for college staff to do a bridging course, as staff with QTS sometimes do before working in colleges.
But he dismisses the idea that heads will use FE lecturers to cut pay in schools. "If there are going to be vocational courses taught in schools, they should be taught by people with vocational expertise," says Ward. "Our members will act as gatekeepers. They won't appoint people who are incapable of doing the job."
Results also indicate young people are finding it difficult to combine their religion with their sexuality
Sex and religion are subjects traditionally avoided at dinner parties, especially in the same sentence. But the supposedly conflicting pulls of sexuality and religion have fascinated writers from the Book of Genesis onwards.
So it is perhaps surprising that there has been little in the way of academic research on the subject until now, says Dr Andrew Yip, lead author of a new report, Religion, Youth and Sexuality, a multi-faith exploration, by sociologists from Nottingham and Nottingham Trent universities.
Aware of what Yip calls "the increasingly sexualised culture in British society today", the researchers set out to look at the challenges faced by young adults of religious faith. "We wanted to explore how they understand their sexuality and their faith, and the significant factors that inform such understandings," Yip says. "Also the strategies they have developed to manage their sexual, religious, youth and gender identities."
What they found was that, although most of the young people felt their religion was a positive force in their lives, there was a strong feeling that religious leaders are out of touch with issues of sexuality.
Nearly 700 people were interviewed, aged between 18 and 25. More than 72% were students, from further and higher education, and they came from six different traditions: Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism as well as those of mixed faith. "There were, for instance, a few Christians that we interviewed who are now exploring Buddhism," Yip says before confirming that, yes, Buddhists are more liberal on issues of homosexuality and sexual diversity. "Broadly speaking, our Muslim and Christian respondents tended to hold more conservative views."
Those who took part initially filled in an online questionnaire. Later, there were face-to-face interviews and, in some cases, week-long video diaries were recorded. Extracts from the diaries are printed in the report, revealing considerable inner torment in some cases. "There are young people finding it enormously difficult to combine their religion with their sexuality, especially if they are lesbian or gay," says Dr Sarah-Jane Page, a colleague of Yip's at Nottingham's school of sociology and social policy.
A bisexual woman who is an Orthodox Jew says: "I can't see myself living in a long-term relationship with another woman because of my community and my religion. I had a relationship with a girl," she goes on, "and, at some point, I realised that I was gay. But I didn't feel comfortable being Orthodox Jewish and gay, in that I don't want to live in a fringe community ... I couldn't leave Orthodox Judaism. That's my home, my people, where I feel comfortable."
A bisexual Muslim man is quoted as saying: "Telling my parents ... maybe I will feel very relieved, but if it did get out into the community, it will just hurt my parents, and I know it will be hard for me to face the community again. Maybe I'll be thrown from the mosque ... It's quite scary."
Despite these painful dilemmas, Dr Michael Keenan from Nottingham Trent University says: "The majority of religious young adults felt their religion was a positive force in their lives, and many felt that their faith was the most important influence on their sexual values and practices."
However, there is strong feedback from the survey suggesting that religious leaders don't know enough about sexuality. According to Yip, "Other respondents consider institutional religion a social control mechanism that excessively regulates gender and sexual behaviour, without sufficient engagement with young people themselves."
He goes on: "We'd like to see the creation of more safe places in religious communities for young people to engage with religious professionals so they can talk with honesty in the full recognition that they are not being judged. What we're trying to encourage is more dialogue with young people as equal partners rather than a top-down approach. Young people need to be listened to. They have experiences and opinions that are sometimes in contrast with what religious professionals have in mind."
Nearly a third of the 693 young people interviewed believe that celibacy is fulfilling, and more than 83% support the idea of monogamous relationships. Surprisingly, perhaps, more men than women felt that celibacy would be fulfilling, though whether they had themselves or their sisters in mind is not clear.
And which sex most values monogamy? "More women than men, but not considerably more," says Yip. "And it doesn't mean that they think marriage is the only context for monogamy, particularly those who are in same-sex relationships. Even among a significant number of heterosexual respondents there was a firm belief that sex should be allowed within a strong, loving relationship between a couple committed to each other although they may not be in a position to get married."
Yip hopes that the survey, backed by nearly £250,000 from the Arts and Humanities and the Economic and Social research councils, will be of use to professionals involved in youth work and sexual health. "Often, religious sensibilities are not at the forefront of their consciousness," he says, "and we'd like them to take the issue of religious faith seriously."
As it is, sexuality and religion will continue to be considered "uncomfortable bedfellows" in an increasingly secular society, as the researchers put it in their introduction to the report before going on to show that the issue is a lot more complicated than that.
Every year CILIP invites nominations for Honorary Fellowship (Hon. FCLIP).
This year the criteria have been worded to encourage nominations from outside the library profession.
Criteria
Nominees should:
Nominations can be made of people who meet all or one of these criteria.
Nominees may include: well-known authors who have campaigned on behalf of libraries; scientists and academics whose work attests to the benefits of research and good resources; business people who use knowledge management to secure success; celebrities who are associated with library and educational campaigns; CILIP Members who have met the above criteria by acting above and beyond what would be expected in CILIP’s qualifications framework.
Nominations – which must be made without the nominee’s knowledge – are now invited for the 2011 round of Honorary Fellowships of CILIP.
Nominations may be made by current individual members of CILIP or by any of the Branches and Groups of CILIP or any of the Committees, Boards and Panels of CILIP.
To make a nomination for Honorary Fellowship please send a statement of no more than 250 words showing how the nominee meets the criteria and giving your eligibility to make the nomination (see paragraph above).
Please note that nominations are made in confidence and are considered in confidence by the Honorary Awards Panel and the Council.
Completed nominations must be returned to the Chief Executive's office by Friday 6 May 2011.
Download Criteria
Download Nomination FormDesirée Chapman, PA to the Chief Executive, CILIP, 7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE.
desiree.chapman@cilip.org.uk
020 7255 0691
via RSS Feed
Surgeons reveal their ingenious techniques for retrieving objects from patients' rectums
There's practical advice in Rectal Foreign Bodies: Case Reports and a Comprehensive Review of the World's Literature, a medical study I mentioned here last week. It's full of handy, workaday hints ... if your work involves doing surgery to recover objects that have strayed, as a variety of objects seem to do, from their more usual locations.
The authors, American surgeons David Busch and James Starling, also manage to tell good stories. They do it tersely:
"Light bulbs have been safely removed by padding the glass bulb with fine mesh gauze or cheesecloth followed by deliberate shattering of the object. Other ingenious mechanisms to remove light bulbs include a threaded broom handle and two large kitchen spoons."
"In one instance a drinking glass was removed by packing the rectum with plaster of Paris to include an anchoring rope after the plaster of Paris had set."
The problem goes way back, it seems. "One particularly celebrated 16th-century case involved a woman with a pig's tail inserted high in her rectum with the bristles directed caudad [ie pointing towards the rear]. In this case a hollow reed was cleverly inserted over the tail, which allowed easy removal of both objects together."
The Busch-Starling report of course concerned only objects that had been discovered prior to 1986, its date of publication.
In subsequent years, as consumer confidence soared, so, too, did the purchasing of goods that would find their way into people's rectums. Here are a few highlights from later years.
1987: The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology published a report entitled Rectal Impaction Following Enema With Concrete Mix.
1991: The Japanese medical journal Nippon Hoigaku Zasshi detailed an unhappy case of Homicide by Rectal Insertion of a Walking Stick.
1994: The American Journal of Gastroenterology reported a case of Toothpick in Ano.
1999: The Journal of Emergency Medicine reported the case of an oven mitt discovered inside a 20-year-old man.
The 21st century has already been delivering up new wonders. In 2001, the medical journal Rozhledy v Chirurgii reported that a porcelain cup was found in a gentleman in the Czech Republic. That same year the British Dental Journal, in an article called "Don't forget your toothbrush!" chronicled the case of a patient who did.
Then, last year, the Arab Journal of Gastroenterology published a study called Foreign Bodies in the Rectum: A Report on Three Cases Including a Bullhorn in the Rectum. You might think that by "bullhorn" they mean "portable loudspeaker". You would be wrong. The report's authors, based at hospitals in Indore and Navi Mumbai, India, write: "Only three cases of cattlehorn in rectum have been described so far; we report herewith on a fourth one." They supply helpful context: A "12cm long bullhorn, which was painted by the patient (he used to worship the horn before and after each act of insertion)."
• Marc Abrahams is editor of the bimonthly Annals of Improbable Research and organiser of the Ig Nobel prize
Defining our professional future is about the future of CILIP and the knowledge and information sector
In 2012 CILIP will be ten years old. In 2018 the library and information profession will have had Chartered status for 120 years.
Between April and June 2010 CILIP held a conversation about the future of the organisation and sector. More than 3,500 members and non-members contributed through social media, an online survey and focus groups.
Anonymised data files from the survey are available on request. Contact desiree.chapman@cilip.org.uk
The report provided clear and consistent messages about the future for the sector and CILIP. The report has been used by Trustees to create a new vision and mission for CILIP. The vision and mission will set CILIP's strategic direction and be at the heart of all CILIP's activities.
VISION
A fair and economically prosperous society is underpinned by literacy, access to information and the transfer of knowledge.
MISSION
CILIP exists to:
The Defining our Professional Future programme is made up of four projects:
Trustees agreed the roadmap at the March 2011 Council meeting. CILIP's new organisational structure will be published in June CILIP Update with an explanation about what this will mean for the future.
Find out more about the programme timetable.
A Project Board was established to manage and facilitate the consultation process. The Board is chaired by Biddy Fisher, the CILIP President, and members are drawn from the CILIP community.
Tasks for the Project Board:
Read biographies for members of the project board
The following official documents about the programme are available to download as PDFs:
Interim budget 2011 and Roadmap (23 November 2010)
Invitation to tender for a Productive Enquiry (18 March 2010)
Business Requirements Document (24 February 2010)
Project Board Call for Expressions of Interest (17 December 2009)
via RSS Feed
Photocopying (gold)