ISSN 0791 1351

The IFUT Working Group which produced a submission on the Green Paper on Adult Education was comprised of Professor Máirtín Ó Fathaigh, Director, Centre for Adult Continuing Education, UCC; Dr Anne Clune, ex-English Department, TCD; Dr Sylvia O'Sullivan, Education Department, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick. The submission was as follows.

We welcome the publication of the Green Paper and in particular its well-timed representation of the broad continuum of different interest groups in the area of Lifelong Learning. It is important that a balance be achieved between the interests of the various voluntary and statutory educational partners. Lifelong Learning should be conceived of as a basic human right of all citizens. The Green Paper does not propose a series of priority actions or mechanisms in the field, and the balance referred to above will be important in the harmonious development of this area in the future. We note the absence of specific references to financial resourcing of the field other than the one million pounds for access-type activities.

The Green Paper points up the low level of participation in adult education activities in Ireland vis-à-vis other countries and also the manner in which Irish participation is unrepresentative of various socio-economic, age, etc. groups. The literacy issue, though very important, is perhaps best understood as a social problem and we welcome the emphasis in the Green Paper on the need for adult guidance and counselling services. The Green Paper's emphasis on innovative approaches to Adult Learning, such as Open-Learning, Technologically Based Developments etc. will challenge the traditional modalities of learning. However, we welcome the broadness of the concept of learning outlined in the Green Paper.

The partnership in learning approach to the provision and process of adult education is to be welcomed. We believe that a National Qualification Framework will enhance the richness of adult learning. We would recommend that serious attention be paid to increasing mature student quotas for the University sector. Also, adult learners, wishing to participate in further education, should have the opportunity to avail of the fees concession scheme provided for full-time day students. Part-time adult learners will constitute an increasingly important part of the University cohort in the coming years and decades. Equity demands that these learners be afforded the same opportunity and support as full-time day students. The articulated needs in up-skilling for the workforce should be expanded to include emphasis on the important socio-personal areas such as communication skills, career development etc. We welcome the emphasis in the Green Paper on community education and the attention paid to the identification of the main barriers to participation by adults in formal/informal learning.

We note in particular the importance of adequate provision of quality childcare facilities as an important element in females participating in Lifelong Learning programmes.

We note the distinctions drawn in the Green Paper between formal and non-formal, accredited and audit, provision. We are of the opinion that both types should be regarded as structured and important in their own right and equal in terms of their significance for learners. We strongly support the policy of positive discrimination in relation to increasing the participation of hither-to-fore excluded and/or under-represented groups. The outcomes-base approach to assessment and evaluation of adult learning is to be welcomed and we would regard this area as having a positive influence on many aspects of the adult learning environment.

The emphasis devoted to the professionalisation of adult educators is warmly welcomed and we would recommend that the process of training and professional development for this important group of educators should have parity of approach and esteem with other teacher training routes. We argue that new initiatives should be properly resourced and should be viewed in the context of career development in a structured manner. The University sector should have a key central role in the development of this field of professional development.

We welcome the proposals regarding the structures of adult learning both at national and local levels. We believe that these developments will inform local initiatives and guide national policy development in the years ahead. We note one gap in the Green Paper’s provision, namely the lack of attention devoted to the importance of research in the field of lifelong learning. We believe that a properly conceptualised research agenda is an integral part of coherent lifelong learning provision. Such a research agenda could include attention being devoted to issues such as:

· individual and community empowerment aspects of lifelong learning;

· the motivational orientations of various groups of learners;

· barriers to participation amongst various groups, including the reasons for low participation by adult males in community-based Lifelong Learning;

· adult learner's learning styles;

· continuing professional education and the importance of flexible accreditation of learning etc.

We believe that this latter point of criticism is justified in terms of the overall remit of IFUT.

Broadly speaking, we welcome the major contribution that the Green Paper has made to the conceptualisation of the area of Lifelong Learning, its delineation of the various interest groups and opportunities, and its commitment to the development of policy structures, qualification frameworks and resourced administrative systems as integral parts of a national process of Lifelong Learning.

(A White Paper is in advanced preparation at the moment.)

This gathering of the Education International, to which IFUT is affiliated, took place from 23 - 25 September 1999 and was attended on behalf of the Federation by the President, Maureen Killeavy of UCD, Vice-President Hugh Gibbons of TCD, the General Secretary, Daltún Ó Ceallaigh, and Eugene Wall of MICL and former member of the EI Sectoral Committee on Higher Education.

General Report on Results of Working Groups

This second EI international conference on higher education and research, bringing together 80 representatives of EI affiliates in the sector from around the world, has been a working conference, aimed at strengthening EI’s position as the representative organisation of teachers and research workers world-wide. It was also designed to develop the role of these higher education and research unions.

According to membership records, El represents around 840,000 members in 24 higher education or research-specific unions and 54 general teachers’ unions. Since El’s foundation, six and a half years ago, there has been dramatic growth in the higher education and research union membership. This is marked by a more comprehensive coverage of the sector by El globally.

This development has both built and been helped by EI’s growing influence with the international and inter-governmental bodies with which it deals. This is demonstrated, for example, by the close involvement of UNESCO in both EI’s world conferences on higher education and research. It has also been demonstrated by the wide-ranging activities which have been reported here with the WTO, ILO, OECD, UNESCO and the World Bank.

The authority with which EI can speak as the voice of higher education teachers and research workers depends on the voice and capacity for participation of its representative affiliates, and the level of exchanges between the unions and El at the national, regional and global levels.

This conference has played an important part in both providing a forum for exchanges on substantive issues and, even more significantly, for examining ways in which dialogue between higher education and research unions and EI takes place and bringing forward ways of broadening and deepening the dialogue on higher education and research issues within EI.

This is an important step which we should not underestimate. This conference is timely in that it will enable the conclusions we have reached to inform the debates in EI in the run-up to its Third World Congress in 2001. These debates will cover both the development of policy and, in accordance with the resolution passed last year at the Washington Congress, they will also review EI’s own structures and working practices. It is significant that the unions in the higher education sector played an important part in the passing of the Washington resolution on these issues.

As well as contributing to the ongoing discussions within El, our sessions have highlighted a number of important areas requiring action in the coming months, for example, on the critical meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in November and December 1999 in which the interests of EI’s higher education and research affiliates are directly engaged. This conference will have played a crucial role in deepening and strengthening EI’s capacity to respond, particularly with regard to the issues affecting our sector.

However, this highlights the need for a more continuous means of enabling the voice and expertise of the higher education and research sector to be heard within EI. Our deliberations have repeatedly come back to this issue in different ways, and reflect the high level of networking which already takes place within our sector. One strong message from this conference is that EI needs to facilitate and employ these networks.

The General Secretary also asked for the ideas and participation of the higher education and research unions in EI’s campaign for Quality Public Education which will generate activities particularly in April 2000. We must Contribute especially on the role of teacher education, research and lifelong learning and the role of higher education in the transmission of culture.

The 1990s have seen a rapid increase in the pace of development of trends such as globalisation, deregulation and decentralisation, accompanied by the threatened casualisation and de-professionalisation of academic labour in many countries. The exponential development of new technology and its applications in higher education and research have formed a backdrop to these trends.

Our workshop discussions have explored key themes with these underlying trends never far from the surface. These discussions have both offered suggestions for policy and for concrete strategies for El and its constituent organisations to defend our sector and to be proactive in shaping these millennial trends to meet the needs of our members and the societies they serve.

Transnational and New Technology Issues

The least developed nations lack technology and infrastructure and need assistance to improve their technological capacity. On the other hand, the World Bank-sponsored African Virtual University has been formed - but few can access it.

Workshop participants expressed concern about measures to ensure the quality of higher education delivered by transnational “provider” institutions. What sort of effective international accreditation process will be developed?

There was concern that research supporting the assertions about the quality of distance education is weak and should be analysed carefully. The example of the “No Significant” Web site which displays research summaries, comparing class results and other data for on-campus and distance learning classes.

The detailed discussion of copyright issues showed that the cost of asserting intellectual property rights was prohibitive, particularly in developing countries.

It was suggested that the unions should look closely at the impact of distance learning for students, including the cost of equipment and technical difficulties.

However, distance learning is capable of meeting the needs of working adults. In developing countries, particularly where a country’s own universities do not provide distance learning, then the risk is that foreign institutions will do so.

The workshop was especially concerned at the implications of the WTO negotiations in Seattle. It reviewed proposals that EI unions raise the question of the higher education service proposals for the Seattle negotiations in appropriate ways in their national news media. A workshop participant agreed to provide e-mail briefings on the background to the negotiations to assist affiliates’ research into their governments’ intentions.

Also, it was suggested that affiliates should develop policies on academic staffs’ “moral rights” to copyright for presentation to EI’s next World Congress.

University Governance, Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Social Responsibility

Autonomy does not guarantee academic freedom. However, academic freedom requires that universities are autonomous institutions. It is regrettable that a number of countries have exempted themselves from the UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel. While academic freedom and autonomy are valued in many countries, it is important that these concepts are codified and enshrined in law.

The workshop had a broad consensus on the absolute importance of tenure if academic freedom is to be maintained. Many instances of the damaging effects on academic freedom resulting from reduction in rights to tenure were given. Tenure has been abolished in some countries and now academics may be dismissed for criticising their institutions without prior permission. While in the past, academics ran the universities in the context of collegiality, now senior managers have been given the responsibility for academic as well as general management. In other countries, recent diminishing of rights to tenure by legislation now allow academics to be dismissed because of lack of funding.

The workshop agreed that the value of academic freedom is greater now than ever before. It is our duty to ensure that society recognises its importance on a par with freedom of the press and the separation of powers in safeguarding democracy. Without academic freedom, fundamental scientific advances would never have been made. While the concept must have varied meanings in different countries, there was general agreement that “if we lose academic freedom, we lose our future”.

With the abolition of tenure in some countries and the general increase in casualisation of academic appointments, fewer and fewer university teachers have tenured appointments allowing them to exercise freedom without fear of dismissal. There was agreement that it was desirable to extend academic freedom to non-tenured academics. This might be accomplished through collective agreements and the solidarity of tenured staff in support of the right to academic freedom of all university teachers.

International agencies, such as the World Bank, or multinational corporations exert direct and indirect influence on universities. The World Bank has complained that governments are failing to fulfil the programmes which it has demanded. In developing countries, funding for academic work often depends on the whims of these institutions. The future dangers of such influence are of major concern as governments become less able to meet the financial costs of education. This is particularly serious for regions such as sub-Saharan Africa.

It was suggested that networks of Education Ministers and organisations such as EI be formed to bring pressure to bear on agencies, such as UNESCO, to take a firm stand against the influence which international bodies and multinational corporations exert on universities.

While social needs and responsibilities must be taken into account by universities, the right to academic freedom is similar to freedom of the press and must be protected or society suffers. The values of academic freedom and university autonomy are paramount. But “islands of freedom” within national systems without basic freedoms cannot be created. At times there are attempts to make it seem that the social needs and cost of university education are in competition for scarce resources. This argument is false and divisive. The key to sustainable development is co-operation and the protection of human rights. In education, one of the most important rights is academic freedom.

Collective Bargaining

Effective collective bargaining, whether “centralised” or “decentralised”, depends on adequate funding in the higher education sector. Without appropriate financial support, the negotiation of improvements in wages and benefits may erode working conditions or threaten employment.

For countries in transition, funding problems are acute. For example, in Hungary, a professor’s salary is only 10 per cent of the European Union average, and legally binding agreements cannot be implemented because the State has no capacity to meet the costs of salary improvements or to maintain employment levels.

In developed countries, there are ongoing pressures to decentralise collective bargaining processes. Such a decentralised approach is well entrenched in North America, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe, there are various moves to modify national bargaining arrangements to accommodate local negotiations on employment conditions. Some of these local processes involve various forms of supplementary payments, loading and merit payments, while others regulate non-financial matters such as teaching loads or work organisation.

EI can play a role in providing information and resources to its members. Suggested initiatives included:

Ø the production of country reports describing the collective bargaining system for each higher education affiliate;

Ø the establishment of an international database on salaries and working conditions and a larger or more detailed conference or workshop on collective bargaining issues - this might be organised as part of EI’s next international higher education conference.

It was also suggested that a database might include emerging trends as well as historical time- series. Data should encompass both salaries and benefits and non-financial bargaining issues such as intellectual property, tenure, contracts, workloads and academic freedom.

[Contributors: the Netherlands, Slovenia, USA, Finland, Hungary, Poland, UK, Portugal, Spain, Russia, Ireland, France, Denmark, Mexico, Belgium, Germany and Australia.]

Diversity, Discrimination and Career Development Perspectives

In analysing the situation in the different countries, participants agreed that diversity has built up in higher education and research institutions as much through the different social origins and the training and education of staff, as through their various categories. This confirms the fact that the higher education environment cannot be considered a monolithic block.

As regards the different forms of discrimination, these have become more diverse and stronger over the years. In some countries, discrimination begins already at the point of hiring staff. But for most countries, discrimination occurs mainly in respect of salary, career and academic responsibilities of teaching and research personnel; student access; and, in terms of sex, social origin, race, ethnic origin, religion and political ideology.

EI affiliates must take the initiative in combating all forms of discrimination. Participants suggested that closer examination should be conducted and a permanent structure should be put in place on discrimination, equality and diversity in higher education, for example, by establishing an international working group within EI.

The working group also recommended that research should focus on the stakes involved in diversity, equality and discrimination. They proposed that information on these should be better and more widely disseminated, for example, through annual surveys on the situation of equality and discrimination and its development.

In the immediate, the working group called on union organisations to totally oppose the destabilisation of employment and the increase of precarious contracts, yet another source of discrimination. As a first positive step forward, the group emphasised the need for unions to implement the principles of equality within their own structures and institutions.

EI should ensure that information is shared and disseminated between affiliates regarding union experiences, strategies and policies on discrimination. It should also consider organising specific forums on diversity and the battle against discrimination. El should also be aware of and work to eliminate any forms of discrimination in union structures and activities. In the long run, in association with the other education sectors, we should aim to implement a plan of action for equality and against all forms of discrimination.

Research and Research Funding

Workshop participants emphasised the need for more resources to be allocated to research, especially to basic research.

Private financing of research is characterised by demands for a quick turnaround. Indeed, short-term contract for researchers are often an effect of private financing. The commercialisation of academic work is spreading.

It is important to consider the issue of research funding from a global perspective.

The workshop asserted the importance of basic and applied research, both of which are crucial university activities.

Permanent positions for researchers should be the norm. The group noted that there is a lack of social protection for those working on short-term contracts and emphasised the need for trade unions to focus on this issue in the collective bargaining process.

Young research workers often have difficulties in developing their careers because of the lack of resources and effective supervision. Governments should provide additional funding for young research workers.

Participants called for closer examination of the academic freedom applied to researchers and underlined the need for unions to ensure that this basic right is respected.

It was suggested that joint projects for PhD programmes should elaborated between developing and developed countries. In addition, international research funds should be made available for developing countries and better co-operation should be facilitated between research students in developing and developed countries.

Society demands new areas of research to be developed. The systems of research financing and career development should be analysed and discussed from the trade union perspective.

Higher Education and Research Unions and the Broader Trade Union Movement

The workshop discussed existing relations between higher education and the broader trade union movement. It was clear that there was no single model and that relations were determined by a range of social, cultural and historical factors, and the stage of development of individual countries and their trade union movements. It was impossible to prescribe.

In particular, there were strong arguments both for and against dedicated higher education and research unions on the one hand and inclusion of this specific group of workers in general teachers’ unions on the other.

It was clear, however, that unionists in higher education and research must build appropriate links at all levels: with branch or local associations, in the national union or trade union centre, and at the regional and global levels. It was argued that one of the strengths of higher education unions in many countries was the fact that their local structures are firmly based in each higher education institution.

Whatever the organisational form, higher education and research unions need to build strong links with primary and secondary education unions not only to achieve a holistic position on education and bargaining issues, but also so that national governments cannot play one sector off against another, for example on educational funding or privatisation.

Higher education and research unions also need to actively build alliances with all other trade union sectors. These need to be built on a foundation of solidarity, particularly in the field of collective bargaining. Alliances are also important to ensure that the issues and views of our unions, for example on lifelong learning or the status of academic staff, get on the wider trade union agenda. Also, these forms of engagement are needed in order to break down lingering anti-intellectualism.

The workshop explored the “social partnership” model which is particularly dominant in Europe, and agreed that while it had many strengths, there was a need to be on guard against the negative aspects. In particular, there was a need to assert the trade union agenda and avoid the danger of being hijacked by the priorities of regional agencies or governments.

The need to sustain and build higher education and research trade unionism was emphasised. The group identified one particularly important way of ensuring a supply of new members, namely the active recruitment of students and young people. In some countries, this would include those who are working on campuses in any capacity. This also helps offset the threat of graduate students being used as cut-price academics.

Finally, the workshop recognised the importance of working through El on relations with international agencies like the World Bank, WTO and the OECD, and also the need for El itself to build alliances with other trade union structures, for example, with public sector workers.

Higher Education and Research Union Strategies in Education International

The following is a synthesis of the outcomes of the three working groups on this topic. Variants of similar ideas and different emphases emerged in the three groups.

There is scope for greater co-operation between higher education and research unions at the regional level, for example, the Mare Balticum conferences in Northern Europe. Such activities, generated by member organisations, can benefit from EI involvement and EI itself can also improve its public profile and its own working capacity in this way. EI should take the lead in facilitating such activities between industrialised and developing countries. Some national level activities can also benefit from EI representation where this is possible.

It is for the higher education and research unions themselves to establish their needs and the action programmes required to meet them within EI budgetary constraints. The higher education and research sector must be recognised as the most internationally representative and fastest changing sector of El, and is also the one which acts as the driving force of economic and technical development.

A range of possible immediate, medium- and long-term actions were identified. In the immediate, it was agreed that members would work on an up-dated e-mail list in co-operation with the EI Secretariat, and would also develop a higher education and research Web site. In addition, it was also agreed that urgent action on the WTO meeting in Seattle was necessary. On all these urgent tasks, volunteers to take the lead in the work were identified.

It is also necessary as a matter of urgency for unions in the sector to respond to the current EI review of structure and governance in the coming months to ensure that the voice of the sector is heard.

In the medium-term, it was agreed that the active support of unions in the sector was required for activities in the Action Programme for the Year 2000, in particular the meeting of sectoral unions in Africa and the meeting of OECD country unions. The proposal that the OECD union meeting might be held in the OECD headquarters was welcomed. On the other hand, it was recognised that the Task Group set up by EI had only a limited capacity to do the work with the EI Secretariat to achieve these elements of the agreed programme. It did not have sufficient representation from the non-industrialised countries, partly a reflection of the regional imbalance of EI member organisations and structures.

A more general issue is the representative basis of the [EI-HE] Task Force. There was agreement that the representation of higher education and research unions within EI needs to be strengthened. One proposal is for the establishment of a representative group with steps being taken to develop regional higher education and research union capacity in the non-industrialised regions.

It was envisaged that this should not be a body established as a formal constitutional body of El, but that it should have the capacity to work on the higher education policy of EI and to ensure that authoritative actions and responses are made possible which reflect the views and experience of unions in the sector. It could keep costs down by meeting on dates adjacent to other global or regional events and for members of the committee from developing countries to be given financial and other support to attend.

EI should also take steps to ensure the direct representation of the sector on the Executive Board of EI. Options include a higher education Vice-Presidency and a dedicated higher education position on the Board. Member organisations recognised the need to lobby with other EI affiliates in order to achieve this objective and believed this should be pursued through written contributions to the EI structural review. Participants of one working group agreed to elaborate these ideas.

It was strongly believed that special steps should be taken to assist unions in non-industrialised countries. This includes capacity-building through contacts with unions in their regions and in the industrialised regions. In addition, proactive strategies to build democracy and promote respect for human trade union rights should be developed alongside specific actions to defend particular members in danger. Global agendas must better reflect the needs of the non-industrialised countries. Generally, EI’s regional capacity in higher education and research must be strengthened, but not at the expense of global perspectives.

The need for structural change was emphasised by the forthcoming WTO negotiations in Seattle which required rapid and authoritative input from higher education and research affiliates. On this and other issues, affiliates must take responsibility for interacting with EI and other affiliates. In turn, EI must communicate more quickly and fully to affiliates on important structural issues.

The workshops were in agreement that the current three-year programme is of great value and that the substantive action programme in future must not be jeopardised by the funding of structural proposals if budgeting constraints threaten activities in the sector.

Conclusions

In preparing this conference, the Planning Committee has sought to implement the lessons learned from the First Higher Education and Research Conference held in 1997. For example, it has tried to build in more opportunities for dialogue between the participants and to make this a more action-oriented meeting.

It has also taken steps to ensure that the report of the conference is produced and distributed as quickly as possible to meet the objective of enabling EI and its affiliates in higher education and research to take up the actions and proposals considered here.

UNIVERSITY STATUTES

Pursuant to the Universities Act 1997, Statutes have been adopted in NUIM, but only after considerable lobbying by IFUT in respect of the provisions for and affecting tenure, which led to a number of changes. The final drafts are not ideal, but did entail a significant improvement over the previous situation. Work on Statutes continues in other institutions and is being monitored accordingly.

The position in Maynooth is now being examined by the union’s lawyers in the context of the Universities Act and further information will therefore be conveyed to members in the near future.

Back to List page

Back to IFUT Homepage