Statement from Colleagues in Music in relation to claims underpinning the proposal to close the department

In response to the rationale offered by Senior Management at Keele for the closure of the Music Programmes, colleagues in Music have written a statement that challenges some of the key claims underpinning the proposal to close the department.

Keele University’s Intention to Close the Music and Music Technology Programmes

We are writing in response to Keele University’s news announcement on The future of Music Education at Keele released on 10 December. This is also the initial response by the Vice Chancellor to people who have written to him concerning the  intention to close the Music and Music Technology programmes.

Summary

Unfortunately, the news release and corresponding  Vice Chancellor’s letter are misleading and lack important background information, creating a distorted picture of the situation, as explained below.

  • They give the impression that there are only 14 students enrolled in Music and Music Technology at Keele. The reality is that there are around 70 students enrolled in the programmes at all levels.
  • There are also around 60 additional students per year from other disciplines who take Music and Music Technology modules.
  • There is no financial rationale for considering a ‘full-time intake’ of 47 as a ‘low baseline’. According to the financial figures released by the University’s management so far, Music and Music Technology is in the black: the income it generates is higher than its expenditure.

The news release and letter omit to mention that:

  • In the last three years, University management has consistently reduced the degree combinations that students wishing to study Music or Music Technology can take within the Combined Honours degrees structure in Keele, drastically affecting the pool of potential applicants to these programmes. Until recently students could combine Music or Music Technology with nearly 30 other programmes. Today, Music can only be combined with one other programme: Music Technology.
  • Due to consistent reluctance by management to replace posts, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of staff in the last 5 years: academic posts were reduced from 8.6 in 2015 to only 4 this year, a decline of 53%.
  • The collapse of a 160 million University Partnerships Programme in 2017 (more info here), which should have comprised a music performance building has contributed significantly to a reduction of recruitment.
  • For the last three years, we have put forward several innovative proposals consisting of distinctive programmes to attract a wide cross-section of students. These did not require significant increases in resources because they built on a consensus with other disciplines, exploiting existing strengths in Keele. However, University management consistently dismissed these proposals before giving them any serious consideration.

Explanatory Commentary

The news release and Vice Chancellor’s letter are misleading and lack important background information, as follows:

  1. By referring to ‘the total full-time intake for all taught undergraduate programmes’, the text gives the impression that there are only 14 students enrolled in Music and Music Technology at Keele. The reality is that there are 24 first year undergraduate students (the intake this year) and around  70 students enrolled in the programmes at all levels.

Whether this is intentional or not, the news release and letter refer to the financial equivalent of new students in their first year of studies (this year’s intake). The reference to a ‘full-time intake’ makes the financial income in the university accounts appear as actual human beings (14). This is because Keele offers Combined Honours Degrees, which means that a Music student could also be a Psychology student and graduate with degrees in both subjects. But for financial purposes they are counted  only as half a ‘full-time equivalent’.  Managers do not see people (currently an average of 20-30 students per year of studies in Music and Music Technology) but just numbers. In other words, shutting the programmes will not affect 14 students but rather 20-30 students per year of study – a total of 60-90 people who will not otherwise take Music or Music Technology at Keele. The news announcement and Vice-Chancellors letter also ignore scores of students from other disciplines who take Music and Music Technology modules. For example, we estimate the number of such students this year is about 60. Again, 60 students from other disciplines who would not have been able to take Music and Music Technology modules if the programmes were closed.

  1. A ‘low baseline’  of 47 ‘full-time intake’ in 2014/15 is mentioned.  No justification is provided as to why this is considered to be a low baseline. However, according to the financial figures released by the University’s management so far, Music and Music Technology have a healthy operating surplus.   Admittedly, the surplus is relatively low in relation to other programmes in the Humanities and Social Sciences (but not necessarily lower than subjects that have intensive infrastructure requirements) and clearly below what management would like it to be. But this is far from the claim that the programmes are ‘no longer sustainable at Keele’.

What the news release and letter omit to mention is:

  1. In the last five years, University management has consistently reduced the degree combinations that students wishing to study Music or Music Technology can take within the Combined Honours degrees structure in Keele, drastically affecting the pool of potential applicants to these programmes. Combined Honours are one of Keele’s most distinctive features, enabling students to graduate with degrees in two subjects. Until recently students could combine Music or Music Technology with nearly 30 other programmes. For example degrees in Music and Geology, Music and Mathematics, Music and Psychology, Music and Law, Music and Computer Science, Music and Education, Music Technology and Neuroscience, Music Technology and Philosophy, Music Technology and Sociology, Music Technology and Physics and many others. Today, Music can only be combined with Music Technology.

Clearly, the decision by the University’s management to deny potential applicants the possibility to combine Music and Music Technology with a wide number of degree subjects has had a significant role in reducing recruitment.

  1. There has been a parallel decline in the number of staff during the period in question. This was due to a consistent reluctance to replace posts when people retired or went to other institutions: with only one full-time appointment made in the last 5 years, academic posts were reduced from 8.6 in 2015 to only 4 this year, a decline of 53%.  In parallel, support staff declined from 2.5 to 2.2. This has significantly reduced the cost attributed to Music and Music Technology.
  2. Another key factor that has contributed to a reduction of recruitment is a direct result of the collapse of a 160 million University Partnerships Programme in 2017 which, in addition to the still very visible abandoned construction sites on campus, should have comprised a music performance building which would have given us a competitive advantage for recruitment: management directed staff to announce the performance building to prospective students during open days. Students attracted to Keele for this forthcoming infrastructural development were let down by Senior Management and clearly voiced their disappointment and dissatisfaction in the National Student Survey. If we cannot compete (facility-wise) it is because Senior Management took the decision not to invest in Music and Music Technology. Ironically, this means that Music and Music Technology will pay the price for the University’s management failures.
  3. Being aware of the recent trends, the Music/Music Technology team has worked hard for the last three years, investing much time and effort, well beyond their contractual duties. We have put forward innovative proposals consisting of distinctive programmes to attract a wide cross-section of students. These did not require significant increases in resources because they built on a consensus with other disciplines, exploiting existing strengths in Keele, particularly in the School of Humanities. However, University management consistently dismissed these proposals before any serious consideration could be given. For example by suggesting that no other competitor institutions are planning to open similar courses. If this had been the prevalent thinking in the past, Keele would have its distinctive and unique Music programme and Music Technology would have never been established because Keele was one of the first institutions in the UK to take such initiative.

Conclusion

Until last year, the Keele Management School experienced a similar decline in students and staff. We welcomed the efforts by Keele management to support staff to revitalise the School and emerge as a new Business School, with new appointments and a dedicated building. Why is it that Music and Music Technology are not given the same support and opportunities when the associated risks and costs are only a fraction of those for the Business School. Is this sending a message that Music and Arts education is not valued in the University?

Music staff understand the financial pressures that have afflicted the university in recent years. At the same time, all we are asking is to be listened to in earnest and to be supported so we can turn things around. We are asking to work together with management to do this. Given the vital importance of Music and the Arts to a university that praises itself of its breath of scope and distinctive vision, to society, to the economy and, most important, to the local community, is this really too much to ask?