PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME TASK AND FINISH GROUP
Final Report to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group
Executive Summary
The Task and Finish Group has concluded that:
(a) Whilst some interim improvements to the current scheme can be made (notably clear role
descriptions for everyone involved in the PDP process, that it should be led by one individual the Head of Discipline - within each discipline, and a new PDP process and record keeping),
there needs to be a more thorough examination of academic staff probation and
promotion in both the E&R and E&S job families than was possible in the time frame
available to the Group.
(b) In particular, the Group recommends that the processes for passing probation and
achieving promotion should be separated, and that VCEG should therefore give further
consideration to whether staff should be able to pass probation and be confirmed in post as
Lecturers, with a separate process for promotion to Senior Lecturer.
(c) Once this decision has been made it will be possible to move forward on a number of key
issues including the length of probation and how a balanced scorecard is applied (including
whether there are minimum performance levels that must be achieved in both teaching and
research).
(d) Whilst the Group feels that it has provided a useful forum for discussion of these issues, in
order to ensure buy-in from Colleges it is most appropriate for this to be taken forward by a
member of VCEG and the College Deans.
Introduction
1.
On 15 April 2013, the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group at its meeting with College Deans
considered a report on a proposed review of career progression for staff in the Education and
Research (E&R) job family. VCEG had agreed revised career progression arrangements for
staff in the Education and Scholarship (E&S) job family in 2011 and it was recognised at that
time that a similar review of the E&R job family was necessary.
2.
The April 2013 report drew particular attention to concerns about the Professional
Development Programme (PDP) for new Lecturers in the E&R job family. VCEG agreed to
establish a Task and Finish Group to review the PDP to report by October 2013 in time for
next wave of appointments (November and December). During its discussion, the meeting
noted that
1
•
there needs to be an urgent review of PDP targets.
•
Lectureships should not become more substantive posts, but should remain a five-year
route to Senior Lecturer 1.
•
managing underperformance is the key issue. The PDR process will be owned in future
by Heads of Discipline, and one of the key aims of the new arrangements will be to ensure
that issues are overcome by Year Five, with proper records kept during the probation
period. Standard forms that log meetings at certain key points would be helpful. Heads of
Discipline will require suitable training.
Although it was noted that Clinical Lecturers are outside this process and not within the scope of this report.
1
•
identifying best practice across the sector would be very useful. This will provide essential
background information for the Review. We must reference our new system against
sector leaders.
•
currently, there is a potentially huge shift in performance required between Years Three
and Five on winning research grants and on publications, which can be problematic.
Membership
3.
Professor Stephen Rippon (Chair; Dean of Graduate Research)
Professor Andrew Thorpe (Associate Dean Research, CHUMS)
Professor Trevor Bailey (Associate Dean Education, CEMPS)
Professor Wendy Robinson (Head of Discipline, GSE; Associate Dean Education, CSSIS)
Professor Jo Little (Head of Discipline, Geography, CLES)
Dr Dilly Fung (Head of Academic Development, Educational Enhancement)
Ailsa McGregor (Project Lead for Athena SWAN)
Dr Lindsay Stringfellow (ASA Representative, University of Exeter Business School)
Lisa Pacey-Wonnacott (HR coordinator; HR Business Partner, College of Social Sciences and
International Studies)
Terms of Reference
4.
The following Terms of Reference were agreed:
To make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group on the probation and
career development arrangements for Lecturers in the Education and Research job family
through the Professional Development Programme for new Lecturers. The recommendations
should ensure:
•
•
•
•
that PDP targets are appropriate to the academic standards and objectives of the
University in the developing higher education environment;
best practice in equality and diversity;
appropriate comparability across job families with other progression arrangements for staff
in academic roles; and
appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research.
The recommendations should also clearly define the responsibilities of each participant
(College Deans, Heads of Discipline, Academic Leads, PDP Lecturers, Human Resources and
Deputy Vice-Chancellors/VCEG) and the training and administrative and professional support
each of these roles will need to undertake these responsibilities effectively.
The role of the annual Performance and Development Review in the Professional
Development Programme should also be clearly defined.
The review should also take account of best practice across the sector.
5.
Recognising the time frame set by VCEG, the Task and Finish Group met on three occasions
over the summer vacation period – 24 June, 1 July and 17 September 2013.
2
6.
The Group considered a written submission from the University and College Union (UCU). It
also heard from the Dean of the College of Social Sciences and International Studies,
speaking on behalf of College Deans of their experience of the PDP. The experience and
views of the College HR Business Partners were also taken into account. The Chair of the
Task and Finish Group also spoke informally to College Deans and Deputy Vice-Chancellors.
Human Resources also provided information about the probation and progression
arrangements operating at other Russell Group universities for new staff in Education and
Research Roles.
Discussion and Findings
7.
Immediately prior to the Group’s last meeting, the HEA UK Report on Promoting Teaching was
published based on the work of two UK and two Australian universities.
It is recommended that the findings of the “Promoting Teaching” report are considered
alongside any review of teaching targets, either in respect of PDP or as part of a wider review.
8.
The PDP was introduced in 2002/3 as part of the University’s HR Strategy, introduced under
HEFCE’s Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative. At that time, the arrangement provided for
a new (increased) minimum starting salary for new Lecturers with accelerated progression
through the Lecturer B grade on completion of the five years. Following the introduction of the
University’s new grading scheme in 2006, completion of the five year PDP provided for
progression to the new grade of Senior Lecturer/Grade G. Prior to 2002/3, a three year
probation period had operated and the arrangements for promotion to the old Senior Lecturer
grade were entirely separate.
9.
Since 2006, the PDP arrangements in the E&R job family at Exeter have therefore intentionally
conflated probation and progression/promotion. Generally, however, both for academic roles
across the sector and for other academic job families at Exeter (E&S and Research job
families) these processes are distinct and have differing objectives. From the University’s
perspective, the objective of probation is to assess the suitability of the new Lecturer for
confirmation of appointment. Progression/promotion arrangements are intended to assess the
suitability of the Lecturer to carry out the role (and receive the remuneration) of a Senior
Lecturer. By merging the two processes together, Exeter is assessing the individual’s
suitability to carry out the role of a Senior Lecturer as part of probation, stating that all E&R
staff are expected to progress to Senior Lecturer within five years and that there is no scope
for someone to “level off” at Lecturer level or take a longer period to progress to Senior
Lecturer.
10. This University has perceived that there is a market advantage in the PDP – ie that by
guaranteeing a new Lecturer “fast track” promotion to Senior Lecturer/Grade G in no more
than five years, we are able to attract better quality applicants. It also provides an opportunity
for exceptionally good new Lecturers to achieve promotion in under five years. In addition, the
interim review is intended to give early notification to under-performing staff that their future
may lie away from Exeter.
11. A large number of excellent staff have successfully progressed through the PDP and are
making a positive contribution at Exeter. Others who should have left have indeed left. The
number of PDP Lecturers leaving before completion of the PDP is small and there is no clear
evidence that they left because they found the PDP experience negative. It is possible that
some able candidates are put off applying to Exeter because they feel that the five year PDP
creates too much uncertainty, part of the problem being that it is generally communicated as a
3
five year “probation” rather than a route to progression/promotion which may be completed in
a shorter time period. There is also evidence that some Lecturers have been allowed to
progress to Senior Lecturer because of flaws in the PDP process which we will discuss further
below.
12. Comparisons with other Universities are difficult because there is no longer a common pay
and grading structure. Some Universities operate a four level model, like Exeter, of Lecturer,
Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor or Reader, and Professor, while others operate a three
level model (Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, and Professor). The salaries attached to jobs with the
same title also differ. Similarly, probation periods vary between Universities, from one year to
five years, with three years being the most common. Within the Russell Group, only Warwick
operates a scheme similar to the PDP: new appointments of Assistant Professor (points 37-43,
which spans Exeter’s grades F and G) “will be made with a probationary period normally of 5
years’ duration. On successful completion of probation, individuals will transfer to the role of
title of Associate Professor” (points 44 – 49, which is the top of grade G). All other Russell
Group institutions separate probation and progression, although a small number do have
two grades of Lecturer (similar to the old Lecturer A and Lecturer B) which provide for
progression on completion of probation (eg Queen Mary).
13. While noting the view expressed by VCEG in April that “Lectureships should not become more
substantive posts, but should remain a five-year route to Senior Lecturer”, for the following
reasons the Task and Finish Group consider that VCEG should reconsider this issue before
further consideration is given to what the performance targets should be, how and by whom
they should be assessed, and the period in which they should be achieved.
14. The Group noted the following flaws and disadvantages with the current PDP system:
(a) the length of the PDP, at five years, creates uncertainty and instability for new Lecturers
and may make Exeter a less attractive employer than other Universities (particularly since
most other Universities have shorter periods of probation).
(b) there is a perception that the criteria for completing PDP are not applied consistently even
within Colleges, with different decisions being made about different individuals at different
points in time without clear justification. The “balanced scorecard” may contribute to this
inconsistency as there is no definition or clear guidance as to what this means. The T&FG
felt that a Lecturer should not, however, be able to offset significant underperformance in
one area against excellent performance in another, and that they should meet minimum
specified standards in all areas of the role. There should, therefore, be clear minimum
standards for teaching and research which must be met in order to complete the PDP,
while at the same time it must be clearly understood that reaching the minimum standard
in every area across the PDP targets is not sufficient and there must be evidence of
excellence in some areas.
Recommendation: VCEG consider establishing a minimum threshold achievement
for both teaching and research, and that while a balanced scorecard can apply to
offset different performance within aspects of teaching or research, the minimum
threshold must be met in both.
(c) the current targets do not cover the full breadth of academic activity (eg employability and
impact), although the aspiration to engage PDP staff with the full range of activities
expected of a member of academic staff at Senior Lecturer and above needs to be
balanced against the desire not to over-burden new colleagues.
There is clearly a
balance to be struck between targets that fully reflect all aspects of the role of an
4
academic, and targets that focus on core requirements and do not overburden a member
of staff as they are starting out on this career.
Recommendation: VCEG consider a wider consultation with regard to the nature
and breadth of the activities to be included in PDP.
(d) another problem is that the link with PDR is unclear. Whilst the PDP should be an integral
part of the new Lecturer’s development and appraisal, there is a risk that the new Lecturer
may receive feedback in their PDR which is contrary to their interim/final review. Similarly,
they may agree targets in their PDR which are at variance with the PDP targets.
Recommendation: VCEG consider amalgamation of the PDP and PDR processes to
ensure a consistency of approach
(e) there have been occasions when a final report has shown that the Lecturer has failed to
meet the required standards but there has been insufficient evidence that the targets have
been explained to the new Lecturer and that they have been advised that they were falling
short of them leading the University to conclude that it would be unsafe to proceed with a
dismissal. This suggests that the formal administration processes need to be applied more
effectively.
Recommendation: VCEG consider the creation of a simple database of
probationary staff, with a list of key documents that are required for each, and a list
of the meetings that need to have happened during the course of their PDP.
(f) linked to this, there is some confusion about “ownership” and clarity of roles between the
College Dean, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, HR and VCEG.
Recommendation: VCEG consider there being an individual within each College or
HR who has the explicit responsibility for ensuring that all the correct documents
are provided to a new member of staff, that the correct series of meetings are held,
and that appropriate written records are kept (ie the database proposed above is
kept up-to-date), and that copies of the documentation are filed centrally. This lead
individual could be a member of College staff or the HR Business partner.
(g) ideally, it should be recognised that for most colleagues meeting the standards required is
not a problem and therefore, the arrangements for PDP should be straightforward. This
will allow management time to be freed up in order to support the smaller number of
individuals who are struggling to meet their targets.
(h) there is a perception is that the current scheme is too stressful for people that perform
well and not focussed enough on others that do not perform well. There needs to be a
thorough review of the effectiveness of performance management for the small number of
staff who under-perform.
(i)
the current approach of three and five year reviews is considered to be inappropriate
since there is a large difference in performance required between the interim and final
review with relatively little time to achieve this. Consequently, it is possible to be “on
target” after three years but “off target” after five years yet it would be unsafe to dismiss at
this stage since there has been no prior warning of underperformance (leading to an
extension beyond five years in some cases). The current arrangements also create the
risk that underperformance is not identified or addressed until the third year.
5
(j)
Some of the current targets (eg “Secure research funding at a level consistent with
the College FTE income target”) are not SMART 2: this creates the risk that the Lecturer is
unclear what is expected and that later it becomes difficult to argue that they have “failed”.
(k) the current arrangements may have led the University to focus its attention on the
performance and career development of probationary staff, with less attention given to
staff development in later career stages. Too much emphasis is placed on using PDP to
eliminate Lecturers who have not been able to demonstrate that they can operate
effectively at Senior Lecturer level at the expense of assessing performance and
managing career development from Senior Lecturer upwards. A more balanced approach
to performance management would recognise that confirmation of appointment – because
performance is satisfactory – does not preclude later application of the
capability/performance procedure if performance deteriorates. The Group observed that
managers in the University appear to be unable or unwilling to use the currently available
tools (ie the capability/performance procedure) to address under performance, which then
leads to the question of whether these managers understand their role and are fully
equipped for it.
(l)
The current arrangements do not acknowledge the standards and progression
requirements in respect of teaching within the E&S job family. Clearly, if there are
standards relating to teaching at Grades F and G within the E&S job family it creates
inconsistency if the standards required of colleagues at the same grades within the E&R
job family are different.
(m) The current arrangements also do not acknowledge the standards and progression
requirements in respect of research within the Research job family. Whilst it is
acknowledged that the Research Family role descriptors and progression requirements
were developed some years ago and may need revision to ensure that they continue to be
relevant and appropriate, if there are standards relating to research at Grades F and G
within the Research job family it creates inconsistency if the standards required of
colleagues at the same grades within the E&R job family are different
Recommendation: VCEG consider looking at all three academic job families in
order to ensure consistency and comparability for the same activities across all
roles at the same grades
15. If VCEG decided to continue with the current
changes/improvements are therefore recommended
system,
the
following
(a) the roles of the College Dean, Head of Discipline, HR Business Partner, Academic Lead,
line-managing DVC and VCEG need to be clearly defined, documented (ideally with
bullet-pointed role descriptors) and published so that ownership and responsibility is clear.
(b) the new Lecturers are encouraged to take responsibility for their own development and
progress through the PDP, for example by compiling their own portfolio of evidence which
demonstrates that they have achieved the necessary targets.
(c) there should be a clear process – with the minimum of bureaucracy – which ensures that
there is an evidence trail to show that PDP targets have been explained to the new
Lecturer and that they receive regular feedback on their progress against these targets. If
a decision is made to tailor targets to individual disciplines and/or Colleges then the
2
Specific, Measurable, Agreed (or Achievable), Realistic, and Time Bound
6
support needed to record and track multiple targets over a number of years would be
process and resource heavy, but necessary to ensure transparency, constituency and
have accurate, update to date performance records
(d) PDP review should be integrated into the PDR process, replacing the “interim review”.
(e) the PDP/PDR reviews for all new Lecturers should be carried out by the Head of
Discipline, or where this is not practical, a small, clearly defined and appropriately trained
group of people within each discipline in order to ensure consistency of approach and to
reinforce the clearly defined roles.
(f) at annual intervals, the DVC, College Dean and HR Business Partner should meet to
review the progress of all PDP Lecturers in the College against the PDP targets with a
view to identifying any who are at risk of falling short of the standards and discussing what
steps are necessary to address this at an early stage. This would mean that the progress
of PDP Lecturers is reviewed annually – replacing the “interim review” after 3 years – but
it would not preclude the award of an additional increment when the interim targets have
been achieved.
(g) the concept of the “balanced scorecard” should be replaced by an explicit requirement to
meet minimum standards in all defined areas, particularly the core areas of research and
teaching. This is essential to ensure that (to quote the Group’s Terms of Reference)
“appropriate weight is given to education criteria alongside excellence in research”.
(h) in reviewing the targets, VCEG and College Deans should agree what measures of
performance are required to demonstrate, within a period of 5 years, that a new Lecturer
is able to perform effectively as a Senior Lecturer. Working back from this, it will be
possible to identify “milestones” which act as early indicators that the Lecturer is or is not
on target to achieve the requirements for promotion. Clearly, both the final targets and the
milestones need to be SMART. The Group consider that the development of these targets
is best undertaken by VCEG and College Deans.
(i)
developing a career pathway from Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor and from
Associate Professor to Professor in the E&R job family which is integrated into the PDR
process so that Colleges actively manage the career development of their academic staff.
(j)
that the selection criteria used during the recruitment of new Senior Lecturers is consistent
with the promotion requirements for PDP Lecturers.
16. The Group consider that there are advantages to separating probation and progression which
VCEG should give careful consideration to, namely:
a)
a shorter period of probation, together with de-coupling probation and progression would
bring Exeter into line with the majority of other Russell Group institutions (as set out in
paragraph 12).
b)
if there is to be a short period of probation, how long this probation period might be. The
Group debated whether one, two or three years would be more appropriate. A one year
probation period for new Lecturers, although having the advantage of consistency with
both the E&S and R job families, was felt to be inadequate to assess an E&R Lecturer.
The advantage of a two year probation is that it is in line with current employment rights
relating to employees acquiring protection for unfair dismissal with two years’ service, but
this has to be set against concerns that two years is also an insufficient period for a new
7
Lecturer to demonstrate sustained performance and their ability to meet appropriate
targets. A three year probation period would be in line with most sector comparators
c)
setting SMART 3 targets which demonstrate to the University that the new Lecturer can
perform effectively at Lecturer level – and hence be confirmed as a Lecturer – would
address the concerns about uncertainty and instability (see 14(a)).
d)
de-coupling would recognise that some Lecturers could take longer than five years to
reach Senior Lecturer level but may still make an effective contribution at Lecturer level in
the areas of research and education.
e)
de-coupling would not prevent the application of a development scheme to take Lecturers
through to Senior Lecturer level within two or three years of confirmation of appointment
as Lecturer. In fact, the Group consider that such an arrangement is essential and should
be mirrored for promotion to Associate Professor and to Professor so that the University
can more effectively manage the career development of its staff.
f)
similarly, de-coupling should be linked to more effective performance management of
academic staff at all levels following confirmation of appointment, with active use of the
capability/performance procedure if performance falls short of required standards. A more
overt process for moving staff between job families may also be appropriate.
g)
de-coupling would therefore enable the University to set performance targets for
confirmation of appointment as Lecturer which are (to quote the Group’s Terms of
Reference) “appropriate to the academic standards and objectives of the University in the
developing higher education environment” and separate stretch targets for promotion to
Senior Lecturer.
17. Clearly there are some risks and disadvantages with de-coupling probation and progression,
namely:
(a) it could be argued that the University’s research goals require an impetus to staff to
achieve the individual research targets for promotion to Senior Lecturer and beyond. If the
PDP incentive (“achieve or be dismissed”) was removed, there may be a risk that
increasing number of staff will become “stuck” at Lecturer with a consequent negative
impact on the University’s research performance.
(b) recognising the concerns and evidence that arrangements for academic promotion which
rely upon individuals to put themselves forward indirectly disadvantage women, there is a
risk that de-coupling probation and progression may lead to men being promoted more
quickly than women whereas the present arrangements are based on the premise that all
Lecturers will be promoted in no more than 5 years. In other words, we may find that
fewer female Lecturers progress to Senior Lecturer.
(c) there is a perception that possibly the University has over-relied on PDP to “weed out”
under-performing staff rather than apply its capability/performance procedure. Unless this
reason is identified and addressed, removing the only (partly) effective scheme for
eliminating under-performing staff could store up greater problems for the future.
Recommendation: bearing in mind the potential problems identified above, VCEG
consider de-coupling probation and promotion, and allow confirmation in post as
Lecturer (E&R
3
Specific, Measurable, Agreed (or Achievable), Realistic, and Time Bound
8
18. Recognising the University’s commitments to its Equality and Diversity Strategy and to the
Athena SWAN Charter, it is recommended that:
(a) that an Equality Impact Assessment is undertaken on any new or revised PDP process.
(b) the nature of any targets are reviewed for unintentional bias using existing research and
data from the Athena SWAN project, and other sources, to inform target setting e.g.
whether presentation of work at a major academic conference of international standing is
achievable for staff with parent and career responsibilities.
(c) there is clear written guidance confirming the way in which part-time staff should be
considered i.e. that the quantity is likely to be less for a part-time member of staff and
quantity should therefore be assessed on an appropriate pro-rata basis.
(d) in the same way as the REF process has been defined for periods of absence (including
maternity leave) that consideration is given to defining “special circumstances”
assessment guidance for promotion. The group noted that other Universities had
implemented such changes e.g. Bristol University who state “In cases of maternity leave,
assessments should be based on the assumption that during the first six months of each
period of maternity leave, the individual would have continued to produce work at the
quality and rate that she had been producing immediately prior to taking leave. For any
remaining maternity leave, or for any other break relating to equal opportunities issues
(including Paternity Leave), that period of absence should be disregarded when
considering output and quality of work over the total period in question. (i.e. In effect, the
service period over which performance is being considered is reduced by X months).”
Conclusion
19. In summary, with reference to the Group’s Terms of Reference, the Vice-Chancellor’s
Executive Group is recommended to consider whether probation and career development for
new Lecturers in the Education and Research job family should be separated rather than
continue to be linked through the PDP for new Lecturers. It is the view of the Group that it is
essential that there is a wide debate about this question before consideration can be given to
the development of revised targets.
20. Once VCEG have reached a view on this question, it will then be possible to develop targets
which address the other outputs of the Group’s Terms of Reference. It is, however, the
recommendation of the Group, that the development of performance targets should be led by
VCEG and College Deans rather than delegated to a Task and Finish Group.
21. Developing administrative procedures which achieve the right balance between necessary
assurance and evidence on the one hand and minimum bureaucracy on the other, which
integrate with the PDR process, should be achievable.
Summary of Principal Recommendations (extracted from the foregoing)
22. Recommendations for immediate implementation:
1. the roles of the College Dean, Head of Discipline, HR Business Partner, Academic
Lead, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and VCEG need to be clearly defined, documented and
published so that ownership and responsibility, particularly in relation to performance
management is clear (paragraph 15 (a)).
2. the PDP/PDR reviews for all new Lecturers should be led by the Head of Discipline, or
where this is not practical, by a small, clearly defined and appropriately trained group of
9
3.
4.
5.
people within each discipline, in order to ensure consistency of approach (paragraph 15
(e))
the new Lecturers are encouraged to take responsibility for their own development
and progress through the PDP, for example by compiling their own portfolio of evidence
which demonstrates that they have achieved the necessary targets (paragraph 15 (b)).
there should be a clear PDP process which ensures that there is an evidence trail
showing that targets have been explained to the new Lecturer and that they receive
regular feedback on their progress against these targets. There needs to be a centralised
system of checking that a member of staff has been informed of these targets, and the
appropriate meetings have happened. For each College there needs to be an appropriate
specified person who is responsible for ensuring that this record is maintained, and staff
such as Heads of Discipline are reminded where appropriate meetings have not taken
place (paragraph 14 (f)).
annually, the DVC, College Dean and HR Business Partner should meet to review the
progress of all PDP Lecturers in the College against the PDP targets with a view to
identifying any who are at risk of falling short of the standards and discussing what steps
are necessary to address this at an early stage (paragraph 15 (f)).
23. Longer term recommendations for VCEG consideration:
• whilst some interim improvements to the current scheme can be made, there needs to be
a more thorough examination of academic staff probation and promotion
• a consideration of de-coupling probation and promotion and allowing confirmation in
post as Lecturer
• developing a clear and integrated career pathway from Senior Lecturer to Associate
Professor and from Associate Professor to Professor in the E&R job family, supported by
a robust PDR process, so that Colleges actively manage the career development of their
academic staff (paragraph 15 (i)).
•
a wider consultation with all stakeholders with regard to the nature and breadth of the
PDP targets including that range of activities that should be included, and the use of a
balanced scorecard including whether minimum performance standards in both
teaching and research should be achieved in order to pass probation (paragraphs 14 (b),
14 (c), 14 (i) & 15 (h)) .
•
amalgamation of the PDP and PDR processes for probationary staff to ensure a
consistency of approach and feedback to staff (paragraph 14 (d))
•
a review of all three academic job families in order to ensure consistency and
comparability for the same activities across all roles at the same grades (paragraphs 14
(m) & 15 (i))
•
the HEA UK Report on Promoting Teaching should be considered as part of any review of
teaching targets (paragraph 7)
•
whilst the Group feels that it has provided a useful forum for discussion of these issues, in
order to ensure buy-in from Colleges it is most appropriate for this review to be taken
forward by a member of VCEG and the College Deans (paragraph 14 (c)
Professor Stephen Rippon
Chair of the Task and Finish Group
October 2013
10