Tag: Education

  • Editorial: 60 Years of the Society for Research into Higher Education

    Editorial: 60 Years of the Society for Research into Higher Education

    by Rob Cuthbert

    Yesterday

    Issue No 60 of SRHE News appears by happy coincidence in the 60th year since the Society for Research into Higher Education was established (“all my troubles seemed so far away”). Reminiscences can often be reinforced by the musical soundtrack of the time, as ours will be. Many readers of SRHE News and Blog weren’t born in 1965, but let’s not allow such small obstacles to deflect us, when everybody knows the tunes anyway. Here are a few reminders of how things were 60 years ago, in 1965.

    (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction

    As the Rolling Stones sang: “I tried, and I tried, and I tried and I tried, I can’t get no satisfaction”, the message resonated with 30,000 potential HE students who could not get admitted to higher education in UK universities in 1965, with only 50,000 places available. Only about 4% of the rising cohort of 18 year olds won admission to the 25 universities in existence in 1965. Most people left school at 15; the school-leaving age was only raised to 16 in 1971.

    The Robbins Report two years earlier had punctuated, but not initiated, the accelerating expansion of demand and need for more higher education, reflected in the 1960s with the creation of the new plateglass universities, including Kent and Warwick in 1965. Robbins had proposed a new breed of scientific and technological universities but these were not established; development relied instead on the organic growth and expansion of the colleges already in existence. That growth was significantly helped and supported by the new Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA), created in 1965 to begin the validation of degree courses outside universities.

    In a Parliamentary debate in December 1965 Lord Robbins aimed to set at rest the ‘more means worse’ argument championed by Kingsley Amis:

    “On the occasion of our last debate, the two leading issues discussed were the question of numbers and the question of the machinery of government. On the first of these issues, whether the expansion proposed by the Committee on Higher Education involved a lowering of entry standards, I think it may be said that discussion is at an end. Even The Times newspaper, which is not over-given to retraction, has had to admit that its accusations in this respect rested on misapprehension; 1250 and the latest figures of qualified persons coming forward show, without a doubt, what our Committee always emphasised: that its estimates were on the low side rather than on the high.”

    Continuing rapid expansion allowed more and more 18-year-olds to join: “I’m in with the in-crowd, I go where the in-crowd goes”. This was before fees; students had grants they didn’t have to repay, with their real value still rising (they peaked in 1968): boomers could happily sing with The Who about My Generation.

     We Can Work It Out

    The non-university colleges would first become polytechnics, following the 1966 White Paper A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges, written by civil servant Toby Weaver. Secretary of State for Education Tony Crosland promoted the new policy idea of the binary system (“Try to see it my way”) in his seminal Woolwich speech in April 1965, but Crosland had been mainly occupied with the comprehensivisation of secondary schools. DES Circular 10/65 was the first of a series which dealt with the issue of comprehensivisation, as Harold Wilson’s Labour government asked local education authorities to submit plans for reorganising their schools on comprehensive lines. It was the first major schools reform since Butler’s 1944 Education Act under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who died in 1965.

    Expansion of HE was substantially driven by the colleges, still very much part of the local authority sector. The polytechnics would increasingly chafe at the bureaucratic controls of local authorities but it would be more than 20 years before the 1988 Education Reform Act ripped the polytechnics out of the local authority sector. In 1965 the replacement of the London County Council by the Greater London Council was big news for the expanding HE sector, especially because it entailed the creation of the Inner London Education Authority, responsible for no fewer than five of the 30 polytechnics, and a range of other specialist HE institutions. Nowadays that kind of restructuring would barely merit a mention in Times Higher Education, which itself was not even a glint in the eye of Brian Macarthur, the first editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement, not launched until 1971.

    I Can’t Explain

    The colleges to become polytechnics would soon be calling for ‘parity of esteem’ (“Got a feeling inside – can’t explain”). Although ‘poly’ would eventually be replaced in the vernacular by the execrable but inescapable ‘uni’, some features of the HE system proved extremely persistent. League tables had not yet made an appearance but would soon become not only persistent but pernicious. Some things, like HE hierarchies of esteem, seem to be always with us, just as Frank Herbert’s mediocre scifi novel Dune, first published in 1965, has recently seen yet another movie remake.

    A World of Our Own

    In contrast David Lodge, professor of English Literature at Birmingham University, would go from strength to strength, writing about what he knew best – “we’ll live in a world of our own”. 1965 was before his campus trilogy, rated by some as the best novels ever about university life, but in 1965 he did write about a PhD student, in The British Museum Is Falling Down. In the same year Philip Larkin, still only halfway through his twenty years’ service as Librarian at the University of Hull, was awarded the Queen’s Gold Medal for Poetry.

    It’s Not Unusual

    For those whose memory is punctuated by sporting events there was still a year to wait before England’s triumph in the football World Cup, which sadly was unusual, indeed unique. A more usual hierarchy of football esteem began in 1965 with Liverpool’s first ever win in the FA Cup, and an era ended with Stanley Matthews’ final game in the English First Division. Tom Jones began his own era of success in 1965 with his first No 1 hit, It’s Not Unusual.

    Eve of Destruction?

    US president Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society in his State of the Union address in January 1965, but Martin Luther King marched in Selma and  Montgomery. The first American troops arrived in Vietnam, and a Students for a Democratic Society demonstration against the war drew 25,000 people in Washington. Student protests, too, are always with us (”The Eastern world, it is exploding”).

    How sweet it is

    Dorothy Hodgkin had won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry just a year earlier, and in 1965 she was made a member of the Order of Merit. The Social Science Research Council was established in 1965. It was later renamed the Economic and Social Research Council in an early skirmish in the culture wars, precipitated by Keith Joseph as Education Secretary under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – who had been taught by Dorothy Hodgkin at Somerville College, Oxford.

    Act naturally

    The field of research into higher education was sparsely populated in 1965, but for the founders of the Society for Research into Higher Education it was a natural development to come together. The learned society they created has, in the 60 years since then, grown into an internationally-oriented group of researchers, dedicated to every kind of research into a global HE system which could scarcely have been dreamed of, but would surely have been celebrated, by SRHE’s founders. Let’s hang on, to what we’ve got.

    The Society has planned a range of activities to celebrate its platinum anniversary, including a series of blogs reflecting on changes to higher education during those 60 years. If you would like to contribute to the series (Help! I need somebody) please contact [email protected].

    Rob Cuthbert is editor of SRHE News and the SRHE Blog, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics. Email [email protected]. Twitter/X @RobCuthbert.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Streamlining payroll for casual and contract staff in education  – Campus Review

    Streamlining payroll for casual and contract staff in education  – Campus Review

    Australia’s higher education sector is highly dependent on casual and contract staff. As of 2021, 43 per cent of higher education employees were employed as casual or fixed-term contract employees. This puts education among the top 10 industries in terms of casual employment utilisation.

    While this workforce model provides flexibility for universities, it also introduces significant payroll complexities, including managing multiple roles under different awards, ensuring accurate timesheet approvals, and meeting compliance obligations for both domestic and international employees.

    For staff, payroll errors – such as delayed payments, incorrect classifications, or missed superannuation contributions – can have severe financial and emotional consequences.

    To mitigate these risks, universities are looking to adopt modern payroll systems that automate compliance, improve accuracy, and enhance payroll transparency. Without effective payroll management, institutions risk financial penalties, reputational risk, and damage to staff wellbeing.

    ‘Wage theft’ or just outdated technology?

    Campus Review readers will no doubt be familiar with the many stories of underpayment in the education sector.

    Dubbed ‘wage theft’ in a report by the same name in 2023, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) reported underpayments of $159 million since 2009, across 97,500 staff, 55 separate incidents and 32 different institutions.

    The union blamed these underpayments to casual workers on ‘conditions of the awards not being followed’, bit in reality, it isn’t so simple.

    In its response to the NTEU report, the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) found that “complex industrial agreements and government policy and funding arrangements had contributed to the [wage underpayment] issue, however, institutions have an obligation to ensure appropriate governance settings and frameworks to avoid these circumstances emerging.”

    “This includes implementing updates and changes to workforce system architecture, such as payroll and time recording systems.”

    Universities operate under some of the most complex employment frameworks in Australia. Staff can hold multiple contracts simultaneously, such as teaching undergraduates while working on a research grant, all under separate pay structures.

    Without an integrated HR and payroll system, ensuring compliance across these contracts becomes a high-risk administrative challenge. Instead of focusing on past underpayments, the focus should be on modernising payroll technology to prevent future mistakes.

    To do this, universities and higher-education institutions across Australia are investing in payroll automation, real-time compliance tracking, and award interpretation tools to ensure correct payments, protect their reputations, and improve staff confidence in payroll accuracy.

    The role of payroll automation in reducing errors

    Companies that rely on manual data entry and updates to data always run the risk of payroll errors and compliance issues. Relying on paper or even spreadsheets to track time worked and manually keying this data into systems creates a huge risk right from the start of the process.

    Errors often stem from these outdated and manual payroll processes, not from negligence or cost-cutting. It’s in these systems where complexities such as irregular working hours, different payment structures, and compliance with visa and employment laws create administrative strain.

    By eliminating manual data entry and automating compliance checks, universities can ensure employees receive accurate and timely payments while reducing financial and reputational risks.

    Automation also simplifies complex payroll calculations – such as processing multiple roles under different pay scales – ensuring employees are paid according to their specific contract terms without administrative bottlenecks.

    How real-time payroll reporting improves accuracy and transparency

    Payroll transparency is essential for improving trust between universities and their employees, as is the ability to run payroll in real-time and see the impact of calculations. This becomes possible when organisations automate the process and focus on managing exceptions rather than processing errors.

    A real-time payroll calculation allows payroll teams to identify anomalies early in the cycle, chase missing or invalid timesheets, and pinpoint specific employees whose pay data needs to be adjusted without having to reprocess the entire payroll.

    The latest technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), will further improve automation and exception handling. These tools will enable payroll managers to identify potential issues earlier in the pay cycle, ensuring errors are corrected before payroll is finalised.

    Real-time reporting also allows universities to forecast workforce expenses more effectively, preventing payroll overruns and ensuring compliance with both internal financial controls and external regulatory obligations.

    The benefits of integrated HR and payroll systems

    Managing payroll for casual and non-permanent staff has long been a challenge for universities, particularly when employees hold multiple roles across different departments with varying conditions and payment rules.

    To overcome payroll complexities, universities need integrated HR and payroll systems, automated payments and improved compliance tracking. A truly integrated system, such as TechnologyOne’s Human Resources & Payroll (HRP), provides:

    • A single source of truth for multiple roles within an institution, ensuring that casual staff who also hold permanent positions are accurately classified and compensated.
    • Seamless onboarding and payroll management, ensuring new staff are correctly set up for payroll from day one.
    • Automated compliance monitoring, reducing the administrative burden on payroll teams.
    • Flexible self-service tools, allowing casual and contract staff to manage their employment records independently.
    • Real-time cost tracking, ensuring payroll expenses align with funding allocations and institutional budgets.

    Universities that are now using TechnologyOne’s Human Resources & Payroll have benefited from a more efficient approach to payroll. Charles Darwin University, for example, transitioned from separate legacy HR, recruitment and payroll systems to a fully integrated HR and Finance platform, eliminating inefficiencies and reducing payroll errors.

    Similarly, the University of Dundee in the UK moved from highly bespoke, costly custom systems to a standardised enterprise platform, resulting in cost savings and process efficiency.

    Future-proofing payroll for higher education

    As universities continue to adapt to workforce casualisation and regulatory changes, investing in a scalable and automated payroll system is essential. Future-proofing payroll means ensuring that universities have a system capable of handling evolving award structures, diverse employment types, and increasing compliance demands.

    TechnologyOne’s Human Resources & Payroll (HRP) helps universities automate payroll, ensure compliance, and reduce payroll errors, delivering a seamless, integrated workforce management experience.

    Find out how TechnologyOne HRP can transform your university’s payroll processes.

    Andy Cox is TechnologyOne’s General Manager for HR & Payroll Products, leading the development of innovative solutions that help organisations manage the entire employee lifecycle from recruitment to retirement.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • CoSN State Chapters Grow With Additions of MACE and CoSNE

    CoSN State Chapters Grow With Additions of MACE and CoSNE

    Washington, D.C.– CoSN today announced that the Mid-America Association for Computers in Education ( MACE) and the Nebraska Chapter of the Consortium for School Networking ( CoSNE) have been approved by the CoSN Board of Directors as official State Chapters. CoSN State Chapters play a crucial role in advancing the organization’s mission at the local level. These chapters provide a platform for education technology leaders to collaborate, share best practices and advocate for innovative solutions in their regions. Through networking events, professional development opportunities and policy influence, CoSN State Chapters empower members to drive impactful change in their school districts.

    MACE is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to advancing educational technology by fostering collaboration, sharing best practices and supporting educators in the effective use of technology. The organization works to enhance education through responsible use of hardware and software, engage with industry partners to establish technical standards, and connect professionals in the field.   CoSNE was established by the Nebraska Association of Technology Administrators ( NATA), along with a group of Nebraska K-12 chief technology officers, chief information officers and technology directors in smaller districts/regions — or not previously associated with NATA. CoSNE is advancing the focus on policy advocacy, professional development, and engagement with state and national entities to advance educational technology leadership and best practices for every K-12 technology leader across Nebraska.