Minutes of the 114th meeting of Standing Committee

Saturday, 11th February, 2006, 11 a.m.

Room NG14, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU.

1. Apologies for Absence
2. Institute of Classical Studies and Library.
3. Minutes of Last Meeting
4. Matters Arising
5. Chair's Report
6. European Research Index in the Humanities
7. Subject Centre
8. QAA Benchmarking for Master's degrees
9. Secretary's Business
10. 10. Treasurer's Report
11. Update from Webmaster
12. Bulletin
13. Statistics
14. AOB
15. Date of next meeting

Present: Graham Shipley (Leicester; Chair), Patty Baker (Kent; Treasurer), Philip Hardie (Oxford), Nick Lowe (RHUL; Webmaster), Fiona McHardy (Roehampton; Editor), Costas Panayotakis (Glasgow; Elections), Jonathan Powell (RHUL), John Rich (Nottingham), James Robson (Open; Languages), John Morgan (Swansea), Mirjam Plantinga (Lampeter).

In attendance: Philip Burton (Birmingham; Acting Secretary); Michael Crawford (UCL; Chair, ICS Library Committee); Richard Williams (Durham; Subject Centre, vice Christopher Rowe).

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Institute of Classical Studies and Library.

Prof. Cornell had recently offered his resignation from the Directorship (with effect from the end of September) over issues of policy. The main issue behind this was finance and the management of the ICS library; a secondary issue was provision of space for the ICS following the rewiring of the South Block of Senate House.

In March 2003 the University of London decided on a policy of 'convergence' between its libraries; this decision was endorsed by the University Council, but its precise implications emerged only later, gradually, and partly by chance. The justification for convergence was the fact that there had been long-standing problems with the Senate House Library, largely funded by subscriptions from the London Colleges (this being largely an undergraduate library). It was said at the outset it was simply a matter of assuring HEFCE that money was spent wisely. The Library committee of the ICS had in any case always acted with precisely that motive in mind.

In Autumn 2003 it was decided by the University of London that the management of the budgets of the Institutes' libraries would be taken away from the various Institute Directors and consolidated into a single University of London Library budget under the control of the Director of University of London Research Library Services (ULRLS). Partially exempt from this were the libraries of the Warburg Institute and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. These were exempted on the grounds that they were located in separate buildings. In practice, both have a significant level of funding from outside the University (and the Warburg's Deed of Transfer provides that the Director shall be the Librarian). In these cases, management of the libraries' budgets would be devolved back to the Directors of the Institutes concerned.

It is not clear whether this policy was agreed by the Directors, or, if so, when. The view of Professor Mann (Dean of the School of Advanced Study and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Information Strategy) is that it was agreed in the autumn of 2003, but none of the Institute Directors then in post can remember being consulted on the issue. As for the ICS, a review panel was set up in 2003-4, chaired by Andrew Burnett, to review its position. This review panel, widely representative of the subject, made clear that the Library was the 'jewel in the crown' of the ICS, and recommended that the Librarian should continue to report to the Director. It also recommended the appointment of a permanent full-time director. When Professor Cornell was appointed in April 2004, neither he nor any of the members of the appointing committee was made aware that under the University's 'convergence strategy' the responsibility for running the Library would be taken away from him. He was told of the decision to remove the budget from his control in May 2005, and the decision was implemented in August despite strong protests from him and Professor Edwards.

During the same period, the University circulated a new Library management structure, according to which the Librarian of the Institute reports to the Director of Academic Services of the ULRLS, not to the ICS Director, contrary to the terms of Professor Cornell's appointment, to the recommendations of the Review Panel, and to a memorandum of Understanding that had been agreed with the Societies.

In June 2005 it was announced that the whole South Block of the Senate House needed rewiring; the Institute was to close for seven months to permit this. After Profs Cornell and Edwards protested, it was agreed the Institute would be offered alternative temporary accommodation for the duration of the rewiring. Subsequently it emerged that the Institute was being removed from an area which had been rewired in 1997 and from which asbestos had largely been removed, to one which had not been rewired and from which asbestos had not been removed.

The Institute is now occupying this temporary accommodation in the North block, which is adequate for the time being. The problem is the longer-term future of the ICS, and the accommodation that will be available when it returns to the South Block after the rewiring is complete. Since the summer it has been clear that the University intends not only to rewire the South Block, but also to 'reconfigure' its internal space. The Estates Division issued a series of plans for discussion by the Institute and relevant stakeholders (including the Societies), all of which were considered unacceptable because they restricted the Library to a smaller space than previously and divided the various functions of the Institute from one another.

After much discussion, in late summer Prof. Mann wrote to the two Societies with a 'final offer' on space, involving a reduction of 22 per cent of shelf space and 30 per cent of floor space. When the ICS library had moved into Senate House in 1997, it had been agreed that all ICS activities should be consolidated within a single 'envelope' of space. Prof. Mann's 'final offer' involved not only substantial reduction of space (and the permanent consignment of a substantial number of books to store), but also the separation of the offices of the Institute and the Societies both from the Library and from meeting rooms in which ICS and Society events were to take place. The newly configured space had no place for a common room. When this 'final offer' became known, King's College London approached the Societies, and subsequently the University, with an offer of accommodation in Drury Lane, around 5 minutes' walk from the Senate House, which would provide for all the ICS's needs on a single site. The costs appeared relatively modest -- so far as can be ascertained, a little under half the cost per square metre of the current premises. King's had a permanently renewable lease on the site, but the space had to be used for academic purposes. The building was a former fruit warehouse, and was structurally suitable for a library. Its area was 1,750 sq m, whereas the space out of which the ICS had moved was just over 1,000 sq m, and the current space was 700 sq m. King's was imaginative in visualizing the future Institute. As the University's sole criterion of relative budgetary independence was topographical, the ICS would expect on moving out to acquire more autonomy, while regaining its consolidated 'single envelope'. This proposal had been endorsed by the Library Committee of the Institute and by the Joint Standing Committee and the Councils of the Societies, and by the relevant subject panel of the British Academy. In particular it had been backed by the Advisory Council of the Institute, which not only endorsed the proposed move to Drury lane, but also supported the Director in his efforts to regain control of the management of the library and its budget. The London Subject Panel in Classics (meeting on 3 February) was also in agreement with pursuing this line.

Prof. Mann had since written to all UK Classics departments, with the aim of putting an end to 'ill-informed discussion' and reasserting the University's commitment to the preservation and continuation of the ICS Library as an outstanding research resource. The letter made no reference to Prof. Cornell's resignation, and while citing the review panel's report failed to mention its recommendation that the Librarian should report to the Director. The Subject Panel had since received a letter from the Vice-Chancellor (circulated also to SC). This suggested that the VC had taken on board the need to preserve the unity of the library, and was interpreted to mean that if the library were to move, it would move intact. The Presidents of the Societies were meeting the VC on Wednesday (15/2).

SC was asked to demand the return of the budget and the management of the ICS Library to the Director, and to endorse the proposition that the Drury Lane site would answer the ICS's purpose best.

In subsequent discussion the following questions were discussed and points made.

• It was uncertain whether the VC had effectively endorsed the Drury Lane plan. Having become involved in the situation at a relatively late stage, it was felt he faced a difficult decision; he wished to appear responsive to the concerns raised, but could not give ICS what it felt it needed without risking the resignation of the Director of Library Services.
  
  
• Negotiations between King's and the Societies had reached an advanced stage. The Principal of King's had written a formal letter to the VC before Christmas making a firm offer.
  
  
• The Warburg and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, though enjoying a special status under the 'convergence plan', were concerned about its implications, and how secure their future autonomy would be. A Warburg-style 'compromise' arrangement was not to be seen as guaranteeing the independence of the Institute.
  
  
• The lease on the Drury Lane site was likely to prove secure. King's were placing their own Institute for Computing and Humanities into it, so clearly they believe they have a renewable lease. A move to the new site would not only make possible the restoration of financial and management independence to the ICS, but would permit a rebuilding of the relationship between the University and the Institute. This arrangement would also allow the University more space, though they would have to find a way of using the space which covers its costs. All of the space into which ICS moved 17 years ago was rewired and de-asbestosed at the time, and the Institute's publications director (a trained architect) had advised University to do the same to the rest of the block; this advice had been ignored.
  
  
• Given the Drury Lane plan, and the restoration of budgetary and management independence, it would be possible to recruit a new Director and to rebuild the administrative staff of the Institute. It is likely that HEFCE funding would follow the ICS to its new site. Ideally, this would be followed by a restoration of a Board of the ICS, to which the Director would answer, rather than the current Advisory Council.
  
  
• The CUCD's response should not be such as to inflame the high feelings already running on this situation. However, there was scope for a letter to the VC, pointing to the recommendations of the Review Panel and asking that they be restored. There was some feeling that the CUCD's efforts should be directed towards supporting the move to Drury Lane rather than the questions of management and finance; but also a sense that these issues were by now in the public domain, and that the CUCD (with a representative on the Advisory Board) was recognized as having a legitimate interest in these questions. The Director and Acting Director, along with the Subject Panel, wished the SC to consider whether it would support the line they had taken.

3. Minutes of Last Meeting

4. Matters Arising

• Para. 3. Strathclyde/Jordanhill. Strathclyde had been contacted re teacher training provision, and had replied that they were admitting students to study for PGCE in classics plus one subject; no pure classics PGCE was offered, in view of 'low demand'. The Chair would write again to Prof. Hamnett (Strathclyde), expressing the hope that teacher trainer in classics could be admitted on a permanent basis. ACTION GS.
  
  
• Para. 4.iii. Research Assessment Exercise. The final guidelines for the 2007 RAE had been published on 31 January. It appeared that 'super-books' could count for two items, or even more (the wording is unclear). The identification of 'super-books' is now left to the panel. The definition of 'early career' academics is still unclear. The international members of the parent panel N were not stated on published documents.
  
  
• Item 4.v. AHRC consultation. It was noted that while the AHRC had recommended offering an extra year of PhD funding in certain cases, many institutions had a rigid policy that completion should be within four years, not permitting extra time for writing up or even for intermission of study.
  
  
• Para. 4.ix. International Baccalaureate. SP had contacted Donald Hill re International Baccalaureate. It had emerged that the IB had no separate Ancient History component, taking it all under Classical Civilization.
  
  
• Para. 4.xv. Subject Banding: The Higher Education Funding Council for England website suggests that classical subjects will be in lowest price band. Toby West-Taylor of HEFCE, contacted by the Chair, had explained that different activities within a department could be assigned to different cost centres; Classics would normally be assigned to humanities. The Chair suggested the issue should be pursued, on the ground that language courses could be regarded as 'intensive' (and so incurring higher costs), as was the case with most modern languages. It was noted, however, that the definition of 'intensive' used by HEFCE was by no means clear; there was anecdotal evidence that not all classics departments were placed in the same band, and that HEFCE were not fully aware that classics as a subject could be taught either in a self-contained department or part of a wider unit.
  It was agreed that JR and JP would investigate the matter, with specific reference to the classical languages, and report. ACTION JR, JP

5. Chair's Report

1. The CUCD-sponsored panel on Publishing is now scheduled for the forthcoming Classical Association conference.
   
   
2. The Chair had attended the launch of the AHRC Landscape And Environment funding initiative; attention was drawn to the large-projects funding deadline in April.
   
   
3. The Chair had attended a Quality Assurance Agency meeting covering benchmarks, programme descriptors, the Code of Practice. etc. The QAA does not appear prescriptive in matters of course design; they feel university administrators are inclined to imagine or invoke QAA rules where none exist. SC felt that this was helpful advice that might help departments fend off their central administrations. Fiona Crozier (QAA) is willing to come to departments and subject organizations to discuss the QAA's activity.
   
   
4. The AHRC has issued a new call for nominations for research panels, for which the deadline was 10 March. It was agreed that a circular should be sent to contacts (and to the CLASSICISTS list) drawing attention to this deadline, and to the possibility of self-nomination.
   
   
5. Personalia. The Chair had written to Averil Cameron on behalf of CUCD to congratulate her on her appointment as Dame in the New Year's Honours List. The deaths were noted of D. R. Shackleton Bailey and of Martin Forrest, the former co-ordinator of the University of the West of England PGCE in Classics.

6. European Research Index in the Humanities

7. Subject Centre

• The Subject Centre had sent out in January a circular letter to HoDs and Teaching and Learning Committees to reintroduce the Subject Centre and set out its priorities. Funding opportunities exist in various areas, details of which will be posted on the website as and when it is up and running. The Subject Centre is taking part in events in Reading on 22 February (which some postgraduates had expressed and interest in attending, and whose attendance the Subject Centre might be able to support) and likewise in the forthcoming Oxford event on history and higher education.
  
  
• Also sent out had been an activity plan, covering inter alia the new Classics in the Marketplace, the replacement of existing dictionaries, and language level descriptors.
  
  
• Particular attention was called to the Advanced Extension Award (AEA) for languages, effectively higher than 'A' Level (since it is designed for the best 'A' level students) but having no set curriculum. This should be of interest to those intending to take a PGCE, as it could be taken around the time of graduation with no preparation necessary.
  
  
• The question of online provision for language learning was addressed, and suggestions invited on strategic thinking in this area.
  
  
• The Subject Centre had considered developing a Classics element in PG Certificate training for young lecturers.
  
  
• On Classics in the Marketplace, the relationship between the data collection and the 'public relations' side of the exercise remained to be considered, as did comparable studies undertaken in other subject-areas.
  
  
• The question of appropriate qualifications and preparation for prospective teachers of Classics was discussed. On the question of qualifications, it was noted that PGCE candidates are not, in fact, always required to have 'A' Level (or equivalent). King's College London specifies 'A' or A/S Level as a requirement, but do not enforce this strictly; the situation of the classical languages is thus analogous to subjects such as philosophy or media studies, often taught by teachers without 'A' Level qualification in them. The AEA offered one alternative, though it was unclear whether final-year undergraduates would find it practical to take an additional exam over and above their university work. With 90 per cent of teaching jobs advertised in Classics call for a language (usually Latin), the Cambridge PGCE programme will not recruit students who after a year's teacher training would be suitable for only the remaining 10 per cent.
  
  
• On preparation, a letter from PJ and Jeannie Cohen was warmly welcomed. They reported that, in the light of the shortage of Classics teachers and the shortage of PGCE places (17 at Cambridge, 15 and soon 12 at KCL), Friends of Classics was willing to subsidize undergraduates and postgraduates interested in training as Classics teachers to attend a summer school, assist its Director, observe classes, and possibly try teaching one themselves (under supervision). There was a broad welcome for the suggestion, though it was observed (a) that many of those who go on to become teachers have already acquired experience of teaching (e.g. in their former schools) before applying for a PGCE place; (b) that the position of assistant director at summer schools was often largely administrative, rather than involved with teaching; (c) that summer schools generally made a selling point of their experienced staff, so it might be difficult to have prospective teachers take more than voluntary additional classes. It was suggested that the managers of the main summer schools (Bath, Bryanston, Durham, Lampeter, London) should be consulted about possible developments in this direction.
  [Subsequent to the meeting, PVJ has made contact with all the Directors of the summer schools, who have been warmly supportive; the summer schools are being invited to report back on how they wish to proceed, and responses will be collated and sent to the departments over Easter].

8. QAA Benchmarking for Master's degrees

9. Secretary's Business

10. Treasurer's Report

11. Update from Webmaster

12. Bulletin

13. Statistics

14. AOB

15. Date of next meeting

CUCD Home

Bulletin Contents

Royal Holloway Classics Dept