Sussex Not For Sale

The Green Paper is available to anyone who is a member of Sussex University. The full version is available via these two links:
If you are on campus click here
If you are off campus, you can get it via Sussex Direct login here
This page also contains a summary of the Green Paper that covers the most important issues.

The Green Paper – senior management’s strategic plans for Sussex 2008-2015 (summary)

In Autumn of last year, the University management set out a timetable to create a new Strategic Plan for the period 2008-2015. The VC published a series of questions to staff and students online in the Autumn Term under the title 'Setting the Scope of our Ambition'. The management published a summary of responses received in November 2007. A series of papers were then produced by management for the two-day meeting of Council on 22-23 November 2007 and the meeting of Senate on 5 December 2007. The most important was the paper 'Describing the Preferred Future' which included the 'Setting the Scope of our Ambition' questions as its starting point. In effect this paper is a first draft of the Green Paper. The Green Paper was written by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Paul Layzell and sent to the meeting of Council on 22 January 2008 for 'consideration'. It was published to the whole University on 24 January with a request for comments by 19 March. It is to be discussed by Senate on 14 March. A White Paper will then come out of it which will contain the draft Strategic Plan

The first part of the Green Paper ('Issues') deals with the feedback that was received from the academic community after 'Setting the Scope of our Ambition' and 'Describing the Preferred Future'. It mentions the “tension between top-down versus a bottom-up approach”, international aspirations, “excellence in all our activities”, “cross-cutting research themes”, creative students, flexible forms of teaching, “student demand”, “resource deployment and selectivity”, infrastructure, the University’s “brand and reputation” and the issue of academic structures. All these issues are said to have informed the further drawing up of the proposals.

The next part ('Strategic Plan Structure') says what the main elements of the Strategic Plan will be.

The next part ('Ambition and core values') deals with the University's mission statement, which is, according to the Paper, in need of reviewing, since a “step change in performance” must be sought. What these terms, as well as the recurring theme of “excellence” mean, remains however unclear. What emerges from the consultation process, the paper says, are three concepts – “innovation”, “internationalisation” and “impact”. In other words, an international student body, global engagement through teaching and research, and employable students to “make an effective contribution to society”.

The next part ('Research and Scholarship'), explains how Sussex has to adjust to a government research funding policy “in which there is much greater selectivity”. In recent years, a lot of controversy amongst academics in Britain has arisen out of the fact that the government is concentrated its funding in larger, more concentrated units. The idea that came out of the government’s 2004 White Paper for HE is that “Universities need to compete in the world market”, and the best way this is thought to be achieved is through the creation of a small number of super-universities, since only the best Universities can contain a “critical mass of research groups” that are able to compete globally. Down one level, in Sussex’s Green Paper, there is similar talk of the “creation of critical mass in research excellence, through the realignment of resources into areas of research strength”, in order to be able to compete more effectively for research funding – resource selectivity as a result of resource selectivity. Hand in hand with this are a set or proposed “cross-cutting research themes”, which will be used to align research and build “critical mass”. The Green Paper does not name any research themes although several examples of possible research themes were given in Appendix 2 of 'Describing the Preferred Future'.

The next part ('Teaching and Learning') will most directly students, although of course there is an interesting relationship, especially here at Sussex, between teaching and research. Here, the underlying perspective is that of the “rational student”, in the free-market sense – “students are paying customers who are offered increasing choice and flexibility”. Once again, the logic of competition becomes apparent – in order to compete with other Universities Sussex needs to shift from a “selecting to a recruiting culture”. For instance, to meet “student demand and expectations”, the curriculum needs to be revised through introducing new programmes in Business and Management, Creative Arts, International Security and Biomedicine.

The most controversial point comes in section 40. Here the Paper says that despite reforms, the Sussex curriculum is too complex “either because of too many electives or because programmes are determined by staff preference and expertise rather than subject/student need.” According to the document, the undergraduate curriculum needs to be simplified, so levels 1 and 2 are standard and can be taught by different members of the department, with specialisation only confined to levels 3 and 4. Also, it is proposed that students in the future be able to boost their CV with 'SussexPlus', a scheme set up to “recognise student achievement outside the immediate curriculum”.

The Paper also recognises the outcomes of the latest National Student Survey and notes the need for increased flexibility in teaching and learning, as well as improved infrastructure – i.e. IT services and the Library. The recently introduced Library opening hours, welcomed by many students, can be seen in this light. Finally, the paper suggests that Sussex might open educational facilities abroad, for international students in their home countries.

The next part ('Enterprise and Third Mission') speaks of developing the profile of Sussex as an institution in the wider world, by developing ways to generate income through the sale of intellectual property, public engagement (i.e. through the media), re-development of the Gardner Arts Centre and student volunteering through SussexPlus.

The next part ('People') deals with the way staff are treated in the future. The Paper says the University wishes to “become the employer of choice for the employee of choice”. This also means selectivity in resource allocation, so that “staff development opportunities focus in areas where benefit can be derived for the University community as a whole”. The focus here is training certain members of staff to become line-managers, whilst funding is withdrawn from staff who wish to engage in a less “effective” activity. The Paper says that an “effective performance management system” must ensure that “staff have a clear understanding of their personal goals within the context of the University’s overall mission and goals”. Finally, it says that the University is keen to “embrace a lifestyle approach”, focusing on staff and student health and well-being, in order to improve the staff and student experience.

The next part ('Sustainability') says the University needs to expand existing Business and Management teaching, and since the Higher Education Funding Council for England sets the amount of home students the University can take in, a number of student places need to be moved from other disciplines into Business and Management. Money can then afterwards be re-allocated to other disciplines, but only if “sufficient additional surplus” is generated from Business and Management. Section 99 makes it clear that otherwise these other disciplines will need to lose a total of 23 staff. Moreover, all income-generating units must make a minimum surplus of 4% on turnover in the future. The profit principle is here readily apparent.

The next part ('Partnerships') sees the need for realigning academic activity with the corporate sector and other Universities. An example that is given is the Rolls Royce University Technology Centre.

The next part ('Governance, Leadership and Management') claims that recent changes in governance at Sussex have led to “a refocusing of University activity, improved morale and a greater sense of partnership working”. Senate is to maintain its central role in academic governance, but must make effective and efficient decisions, which may very well mean cutting down its size. Finally, Sussex must start developing its own leaders and become a provider of leadership to other Universities, since this will have a positive impact on Sussex’s brand and reputation and will improve effective decision making.

The next part ('Financial Implications')says that the Strategic Plan will lead to an increase of £43m a year in grants by 2011 (over the level they would have been at without the Strategic Plan, i.e. £164m a year). It also envisages increasing the present student numbers (about 10,000) by 1700 home/EU students and 900 international students by 2011.

The final part ('Next Steps') says a 5 year Operational Plan will be developed to guide the implementation of the Strategic Plan from the top down, which will determine how money is to be spent.

Further Reading:

1. Research & Teaching Themes