STOP PRIVATISATION OF OUR SCHOOLS

'Onslaught of the Academies: an experiment out of control'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Monday October 13th 7.00, MMU Geoffrey Manton Building (Lecture Theatre 4), Oxford Rd (opposite Aquatics Centre)

SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
Christine Blower (General Secretary NUT)
Fiona Miller (Education journalist)
Terry Wrigley (University of Edinburgh)

This meeting is hosted by UCU at MMU and organised in conjunction with the Anti-Academies Alliance (http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/)

ESSEX UNIVERSITY REJECT PRIVATISATION

UCU has recently been informed that management at Essex University has said no to a privatisation deal with INTO. This comes on the back of an effective campaign by the local branch which saw 90% of staff, voting in an open referendum, agreeing that a partnership with INTO would damage Essex University.

Management at MMU are seeking a similar deal with another private company Navitas. This potential deal remains shrouded in secrecy as the VC signed a confidentiality agreement and so cannot discuss the deal with staff at MMU without Navitas' permission. UCU locally and nationally are continuing in our campaign for openness and transparency by calling on the VC to withdrawn from the confidentiality agreement.

We also remain committed to fighting against any privatisation of academic provision and for bringing back in-house previously privatised services.

For more information on Essex University see: http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3518

NAVITAS AND CONFIDENTIALITY

OPEN LETTER TO PROFESSOR JOHN BROOKS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Vice Chancellor,

We are writing to express our disappointment at the lack of openness and transparency concerning the discussions between you and Navitas, a private sector educational firm. There have been several requests, made by the recognised trade unions, to share information and enter into discussions about the proposed use of Navitas at MMU. You have stated that you cannot discuss this issue as, in order to receive a draft contract from Navitas, you “had to” sign a confidentiality agreement. You have also stated that this agreement was initiated by Navitas and is designed to protect their commercial interests.

We find the decision to sign such a confidentiality agreement a poor managerial judgement, the impact of which is that you cannot have an open discussion with MMU staff concerning the use of a private sector firm to deliver courses at MMU. One of the major concerns when dealing with private sector firms is a lack of transparency and accountability. You will then appreciate our alarm that even before a contract has been signed with Navitas there is this amount of secrecy. In addition, we are faced with a private firm dictating the terms on which the university is run.

Therefore, we call on you to withdraw from the confidentiality agreement with Navitas and enter into meaningful negotiations and discussions with university staff and the recognised trade unions to address any underlying issues.

UCU BRANCH MMU - UNISON BRANCH MMU - GMB BRANCH MMU.

22 September 2008

FORMER DIRECTORS - PART 1 (a)

"GUN-TOTING" FORMER DIRECTOR FACES COURT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In addition to our earlier post on Trevor Flugge, further details of his escapades in Iraq have come to our attention - see: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-odd-stray-shot/2006/02/02/1138836372830.html

FORMER DIRECTORS - PART 1

FORMER DIRECTOR FACES COURT OVER "SADDAM KICK-BACKS"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UCU has published a briefing on the activities of Navitas. Included in the briefing is the revelation of the activities of a former Navitas director Trevor Flugge. Mr Flugge resigned his directorship on 28 November 2006 amid allegations of supplying kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime through the UN Oil-for-Food programme. As the UCU briefing continues:

“It was alleged that as chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Trevor Flugge had secured lucrative contracts for Australian agriculture in Iraq through kickbacks via the Oil-for-Food Programme. Flugge was called before the Cole Inquiry [set-up to look at these allegations] in Australia and stepped down from his directorship of IBT at the same time. At the time the company said if there was no wrongdoing, Flugge would resume his position. He never did.”

Indeed Flugge and a number of his former colleagues at the AWB are now facing a court case launched by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, over these allegations.

NAVITAS DIRECTOR SPEAKS OUT

The world of profit and education according to Peter Larsen, (founding director of Navitas)

“As a young teacher with a passion for teaching mathematics I hope I made a difference – but to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure.

As a principal guiding younger teachers, I hope I made a difference but again, I am not sure.

What I am sure of, however, and I take great pride in this, is that my colleague Rod Jones, other local and interstate founders of this enterprise and I “kept the faith” in relation to our focus on quality and never compromised on this in favour of profit.

We have, I believe, changed attitudes to the private “for profit” sector of the education industry, showing that education can be delivered in a commercial environment but without jeopardizing the nature of the profession or its underpinning values in any way.

No doubt others will judge us on this, but we certainly believe that we have contributed to influencing individual and institutional attitudes in this regard. We have, I think, “made a difference” and I hope you aspire to do the same in your own fields.

It really does give you quite a “buzz’.”

Extract from Peter Larsen’s (a founding Director of IBT, now known as Navitas) acceptance speech for an Honorary Doctorate from Edith Cowan University, 16 March 2008

Maybe the “buzz” Peter Larsen is referring to has something to do with the AUS$ 60m he is reported to have amassed from the activities of Navitas.

Meanwhile, the Australian Universities Quality Agency has expressed concern that ACAP (a private college wholly-owned by Navitas) has not provide the level of support needed by their students (see separate blog post below).

FIGHTING PRIVATISATION - DEFENDING EDUCATION

BELOW IS THE TEXT OF OUR SECOND LEAFLET +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The directorate are in secret negotiations with a private sector company called Navitas (formerly known as IBT Education) to set up an “International College” at MMU. A draft contract has been prepared but the V-C has signed a “confidentiality agreement”, thus he is unable to discuss the contract openly with university staff. An agreement with a private firm will have implications not just for pay and conditions but also the quality of education at MMU.

WHAT DO NAVITAS DO?
1. Navitas is an Australian based company that proudly boasts being the first educational institution listed on the Australian Stock Exchange;
2. They establish international colleges which recruit international students on to diploma courses that once completed “guarantee” entrance onto the second year of the relevant degree programmes;
3. They also have interests/operations in employment agencies, vocational training, English language colleges and the migration advice industry. These operations cover the UK, Canada, Australia and various countries in south east Asia;
4. Their recent interim financial results presentation identifies the UK as a market with opportunities to grow their courses.

COMPETING PRIORITIES
The implication of this is that Navitas have to give greater emphasis to making a profit. All other priorities such as educational standards, student welfare and experience, or a good work environment are filtered through the need make a profit. An example of this is the Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP) a private college wholly owned by Navitas. A report by the Australian Universities Quality Agency expressed concern that ACAP:
1) Have a small college council (only 3 members) with no independent representation;
2) Lack sufficient resources available for student support;
3) Lack an adequate environment to allow staff to contribute to academic life (many of whom are part-time and / or on temporary contracts);
4) Do not pay equivalent “rewards” to its staff as in the rest of the sector;
5) Lack educational objectives in its strategic planning process and suffer from weak academic leadership.

An international college set-up by Navitas here at MMU will be under the same pressures to make profits and satisfy the stock market expectations. We argue that MMU can provide a better service to our international students by keeping the provision in-house."Keeping Navitas out of MMU is not just about defending pay and conditions for our colleagues. It is also about defending the quality of the education we provide here.