COU11D012 Title: Author:

Circulation: Agenda: Version: Status:

School of Music UEA Students' Union (http://www.ueastudent.com/news/view/94), UCU@UEA (http://uea.web.ucu.org.uk), SaveUEAMusic Campaign Group (http://saveueamusic.org), School of Music Parents' Group, Music faculty of the School of Music, Concerned UEA Academics The Council 28 November 2011 COU11A002 Final Open

To: Members of UEA Council School of Music RAM/NAMHE plan We recognise there have been considerable difficulties in the School of Music, and the status quo is no longer an option for the University. However we feel the recent review that has been conducted has not exhausted creative solutions to these challenges. We therefore believe that the council should not agree to the proposal to close the School of Music, at least not yet. Instead we believe the University should complete the review process by properly exploring the substantial opportunities for creative solutions, and only if this exploration proves fruitless should the council agree to closure. The challenges and opportunities of running a thriving music department a vital component of the most prestigious universities are particular to the subject, yet thus far no subject-specific expertise has been sought from within or without. In response to news of the threat of closure, and as some indicator of the esteem in which the school is held, support has been offered from the Royal Musical Association (RMA) and National Association for Music in Higher Education (NAMHE). They have made the generous and constructive proposal to form an expert team of internationally reputed experts with track records in running successful UK music departments to help develop a Business Action Plan for the School. We propose to Council that they accept the RMA/NAMHEs proposal, give that group the necessary support, and to postpone a decision on closure until they report. It is clear that a complex set of issues needs to be addressed in such a plan: the relationship between university-funded music and the School's core activities, fund generation, leadership and staffing needs, course development and the enhancement of entry tariffs, and the full realisation of the schools research potential. Proposals for engagement and prospects for enterprise also need to be evaluated more fully. By taking stock of the situation fully appraised of the constraints, such a team would be able to assess the potential of the School to realise what must be its aim: to thrive without long-term subsidy and to expand without the need for continuous financial support. Expressions of support have also come in from eminent figures in the region (including civic and business leaders). We believe wider consultations with a regional team will contribute to addressing the issue of revenue generation to support the transitional phase; business leaders, an ex-MP, professional musicians and senior academics have expressed their willingness to form such a group. Existing expressions of interest would be developed to identify additional sources

of funding through regional and national networks. Space constraints will be addressed through the many performing connections in the City, further enhancing engagement. At the beginning of this academic year, the School faculty was unanimous in sensing that an exciting turning point had been reached: the largest, most enthusiastic new cohort, a reinvigorated teaching team delivering more integrated, relevant programmes with a clear and cogent intellectual rationale. The School's success in teaching is demonstrated by its standing in NSS and Guardian tables; the enthusiasm of students across the campus for the School and for its role in wider university life in their overwhelming support (http://www.ueastudent.com/news/view/94). The international reputation of the work of the School of Music is clear in the wave of messages of support from the most authoritative quarters, messages very specific in the value they attach to this work and the particular characteristics of the School (http://saveueamusic.org). What we have is not the failure of a school but a failure to develop as yet the appropriate model within which its potential can be fully realised under the dynamic and increasingly challenging Higher Education funding environment. The RMA/NAMHE proposal may be a unique opportunity to capitalise on the School's history and potential in order for it to become a School which can make a significant and sustainable contribution to the University's reputation into the long term. To reiterate, we urge Council to postpone a decision on closure, to accept the RMA/NAMHE proposal, and to give that group the necessary support. Yours sincerely,

UEA Students' Union (http://www.ueastudent.com/news/view/94) UCU@UEA (http://uea.web.ucu.org.uk) SaveUEAMusic Campaign Group (http://saveueamusic.org) School of Music Parents' Group Music faculty of the School of Music Concerned UEA Academics

18 November 2011

Recommendation to explore positive alternatives to closing the School of Music from Matthew Myles and Rob Bloomer, Council members representing the Union of UEA Students. The Report from the Music Review Panel recommends that the School of Music (MUS) no longer teaches at UG, PGR or PGT level. We believe that the School should be given an opportunity to explore alternatives to closure for the following reason: The process of Report from the Music Review Panel is being widely criticised by academics around the world and presents a PR risk to the University should we choose to accept its recommendations. Nearly 10,000 people have signed the petition in opposition of the Reports recommendations, with over 100 academics from around the world. It has had a close following in the local press, and will be featured in the Guardian nationally this week. The Report has been widely criticised for the lack of evidence to substantiate any claims. For example, a Panel without subject-specific expertise visited the websites of other institutions to compare facilities and resources, without external expert consultation. The Report was deeply rooted in the 2002 Review, yet the authors of this Review found the selective quotation of the 2011 Report to be misleading and dispiriting. The 2002 Review suggested that the University invest in staff to create the demand for increased recruitment, yet the 2011 Review states that there was a lack of improvement in recruitment to justify investment. Therefore the Panel misused the 2002 Review, deeming the 2011 Report to be deeply rooted in misinterpretation. The Terms of Reference state that the Report was conducted in the context of the Corporate Plan, yet no such document was referred to in the appendix or throughout. Decisions should be rooted in strategic consideration; the Report is rooted only in metrics, without evidence to support claims. The lack of evidence points to several questions that should be answered with precision: what impact does the entry tariff of MUS have on the institution? What impact does the REF score of MUS have on the institution? What is the debt of the School? What portion of the subvention is being used for core musical provision? What is the cost of investment? Where will this funding come from? To what extent will other Schools be endangered? Considering MUS recruited 50 students last year, how unlikely is it that they will be unable to recruit 41 students this year to break even, just 8 more than the 33 Student Number Control cap? If it is the case that MUS does not meet the aspirations of the University, then to what extent are these problems irreversible? Can we close a School with these questions unexplored? The Report suggests that the 33 students in the Student Number Control cap would be more useful in Schools such as HIS, PHA, LAW and LDC. On the Panel Membership were Prof John Charmley (HIS) and Alastair Mullis (LAW). This is a conflict of interest that should not be neglected, especially considering the lack of independent consultation.

The School has received an offer from the Royal Music Association and the National Association for Music in Higher Education to undertake a full exploration into alternatives to the closure of the School. MUS is an expanding, world-renowned School with extremely high scores in student satisfaction, and to close the School would leave the University as an outlier amongst the best Universities in the country without a high level of musical provision. Should the University decline the offer and close the School based on the recommendations of the 2011 Report, not only will it set an uncomfortable precedent but it will also carry a public relations risk, not just locally but nationally, at a critical time for recruitment. We urge Councillors to accept the RMA/NAMHE offer to explore a positive plan for the School.

This is most dispiriting. Not least because the gist of our 2002 report was that the future for Music could only be decline or investment, and we strongly recommended investment. Clearly this course was not followed; the result is predictable (and the misuse of our report very irritating). The new review follows a familiar model where a department is set up to fail, by a pattern of university (in)action, and then the victims are held responsible; the plodding jargon merely exacerbates the insult. - Professor Richard Middleton the 2002 Document was a positive plan for Music and the selective quotation in the current Internal Report is misleading in this respect. The criticisms in that Report all flow from the failure of the University to appoint staff, both following the 2002 plan and particularly in the wake of David Chadd's death in 2006. With a dynamic and visionary appointment now at professorial level, a pathway for regeneration would immediately open up. I remain surprised that a Report of such potentially significant impact on regional and national educational and cultural life should have been prepared without consulting at least one, if not more external specialist music advisers. - Professor Robert Pascall