| Description | Interview with Neil Fletcher; former Leader of the Inner London Education Authority (the local government body responsible for the formation of The London Institute) and ex-Governor of The London Institute.
The interview can be accessed in QuickTime Movie and Waveform Audio formats, and a transcript is also available.
Interview description:
Video 1 [00:00] Neil Fletcher, Chairman of the Further and Higher Education Committee, led ILEA for 3 years before it was abolished. [00:39] Description of ILEA as grouping of education services across Inner London Boroughs until end in 1990. Responsibility across primary, nursery, secondary, further and higher education. Involved from an early stage after a review in the creation of the London Institute. Comments; proud of involvement and pleased to still be involved. [02:19] Comments on own educational background. [02:41] Coincidence that during 1980s review of colleges it was art and design colleges. [03:06] Discusses origins of London Institute; conducted a review and noted large number of colleges; thriving area of education; his own lecturing background in Further Education. Comments further and higher education closely connected. Review; became Chairman of Governors. [04:42] Initial vision for Institute; looked at 4/5 art schools that were the Committee's responsibility. Look at possibility of bringing them together, in context of government looking to make savings and talk of too many art schools in inner London, wanting to protect and strengthen them. [05:51] Separate and competitive colleges, importance of bringing them together; support, credibility, reputation, staying in London and ILEA, ensuring money from government. [06:42] Formation of London Institute as radical; using influence and power over colleges. Discusses representing tax payers and election to post; ensuring handing over something effective and high quality. [07:24] Radical; action from centre to merge colleges, with opposition, seen as interfering. [07:55] Ensuring survival of colleges; successful but difficult and challenging governing bodies of colleges. [08:38] [08:50] Roles and responsibilities of Formation Committee; first decision was review; 18 months and big area covered leading to other significant changes. Ensuring creation of something long-term; dealing with well-established and historic colleges; traditions' histories. [09:54]
Video 2 [00:00] Formation Committee; after decision to create an organisation; bring colleges together to create one institution. Committee to handle practicalities; finance; personnel; leadership. [00:46] Opposition, but Committee had responsibility and power; vote in Council Chamber. Formation Committee created by Education Committee of ILEA [01:17] appointed self as Chair; felt it was successful. [01:49] Numbers on committee; uncertain; own Labour Party, Bala Gnanapragasm vice-chair, Stephen Benn, Conservative Herbert Stanford, trade union representative; one principal, lecturer's union. [02:40] Original meeting to scope tasks; consider accommodation, then ILEA to oversee. [03:18] [03:33] Association of College Principals; concern over jobs; new management structure. [04:18] Union of lecturers involved; jobs; strengths or decline, 2/3 years of concern. [04:52] London College of Printing; decline of hot metal and old printing industry. [06:35] New technologies; new industries; graphic design; fashion. Institute to change as London changed. [07:25] Bringing together experts and ideas [07:56] Influence once established in sector; creating brand new institution; diversity; retained names of individual colleges to today; grown stronger. [10:16] 1990 ILEA abolished; became a full university. [10:39] [11:19] Controversy over creation of Institute; new people brought in. John McKenzie first principal; expert manager; worked closely and shared vision. [12:51]
Video 3 [00:00] Anxiety around change; unions; meetings with senior staff; often hostile. [01:18] Governors involvement in bigger college. Confident and new governing body very different. [02:13] Collegiate Institute seminar; hearing concerns of people of London; discuss vision and listen. [04:19] Precedents for this type of institution; trip to New York; similarities with London; Fashion Institute of Technology visit in 1984; enthused by different expertise across the college working together. [06:49] Process of drawing up Institution's mission; experienced officers used to gather information; documentation; paperwork. [08:13] Lobbying to leave responsibility with colleges; wanted dynamism from new institution. [09:13] Success of institution; colleges survived; right people, purposes, terms of reference. Avoiding top-heavy institution; new team moved into Davis Street offices. [11:29] Success in establishing international prestige; London emerging as a key world centre for art, fashion, design; attracted large number of people and university has benefitted; now a world player. [13:34]
Video 4 [00:00] Discusses budget of ILEA. Large Labour Party representation; equal opportunities and priority on fair access. [01:54] Discusses gender and London College of Fashion; and in the printing industry. Institute demonstrated good practice. [02:42] Challenges and disappointments; lack of equality in gender across senior staff; providing equal opportunities. [04:45] Attracting under-represented groups; Importance of clear messages from centre; Institute as a leading example. [06:28]
Visits from governors to discuss developments and equal opportunities; bringing colleges together. [07:45] Success in serving disadvantaged students; good at selling; messages; values; no dominant college; partners; unity. [10:05]
Video 5 [00:00] Selection of colleges; range of institutions considered. London College of Furniture initially considered but not selected, Central School of Speech and Drama resisted. 7 initial colleges; good mix driven by Fine Art.
[02:38] Discusses hope to include Central School of Speech and Drama; add Drama in Institute. Pressure in own Party, following general election other priorities emerged. [04:35] Initial reaction to proposal; discusses negative press; opposition; protests. Describes himself and the idea as radical. [06:32] Difficulties of central government in London. [07:51] No colleges in favour; cautious; conservative; resistant to change. Discusses own development of thick skin and eventual success. [09:38] Changes on the ground after establishment of Institute; discusses people's worries about change. [12:02] Changes in funding; changes to identities of colleges; resistance to change; perception as a merger; felt it was well handled. [14:06] Influence of heads of colleges limited; discusses meetings with them; their place in new structure. [16:25] Feeling as an outsider; felt colleges retained unique identities and benefit of his non-creative background. Traditions of teaching painting in colleges continue, not wanting to impose standard model of creative teaching. [18:59] Relationship with John McKenzie; conversation; large amount of bureaucracy; size of ILEA. Challenges posed by buildings; ensuring spread across London. Describes own support for John. [21:36]
Video 6 [00:00] Challenges for staff; importance of having teachers who were practitioners. Discusses quality of teaching; students able to work with practitioners, desire to keep high number of part-time staff. [03:10] Benefits for students of Institute; creating a wider field; opportunities to acquire a range of expertise. [04:30] Discusses himself as an observer, not a practitioner. Wanted to ensure it was an institution for further and higher education; A-Levels and vocational courses; encouraging students to stay in same organisation; vision of a ladder of progression through institution. Mentions feeling proud to recruit first generation students. [07:52] Lack of current government funding; declining proportion of first generation students; recent conversations with Nigel Carrington. [09:16] Colleges recruiting non-academic people; training in trades and skills; important for London population with a non-traditional background. [10:34] Importance of building links with industry; with schools; giving opportunities for younger creative people. [12:41] Discusses naming of institution; importance of it being unique for London and for the London people; employers for recruitment; supporting the London economy. [15:41]
Video 7 [00:00] Discusses how he came to be Chair of Governors, chaired the review and established formation committee with Labour and Conservative politicians. [02:06] Inclusion of representatives from the colleges, institutional structure building; offices; short-term organisation and oversight of budget. [04:05] Discusses personal experience of process and relationship with John McKenzie. [05:33]
Video 8 [00:00] Role of Board of Governors in formation of London Institute. (mic slips)
Video 9 [00:00] Role of the Governing Body in formation of London Institute; unique and important nature of their role establishing institution; backgrounds of members of the Board. [02:28] [03:09] 1988 Academic Plan; taking funding of institutions away from local authorities; opportunity to set out purpose of higher education institutions. [04:54] Academic Plan as a roadmap; set context for new institution. [05:58]
Video 10 [00:00] Factors leading to London Institute becoming a corporation; government legislation removing higher education from local government; set up independent sector. [00:21] Discusses feelings of government devaluing importance of local government; precedents for this in badly-managed polytechnics. [00:50] Discusses difficulties of forming a similar institute today [03:13] ILEA being abolished and sadness at losses of schools, universities, youth service. [03:54] Personal response to change; pain for people involved in creation of new system. [05:53] Changes to function of London Institute after it was incorporated, changes to internal processes; development of autonomy and capacity to change. [08:05] Key success was in creation of single institution with retained identities of individual colleges; maintenance of high standards; importance of accountability of institution to local area. [10:43] Personal history as Chair and then governor of institution until c.2000 [11:56] Reasons for standing down; felt involvement was long and renewing body would benefit institution; stayed in touch [13:27] Class of ’86 exhibition; at time of local election; publicity of exhibition and part of establishing London Institute. [14:45] Institute’s Trading Company (DALI?); John McKenzie’s vision for ‘empire building’; looking for ways to grow business and globalise market. Development of innovation opportunities for students and other areas of study to trial. [19:15]
Video 11 [00:00] Reasons for leaving London Institute; bad personal relationship with Bill Stubbs at the time [01:32] Maintaining contact with University of the Arts; visit exhibitions and shows; some personal relationships; now an observer. [02:51] Focus since leaving his role; local government association; consultancy; overseas work in Africa in public sector and education; fellow at University College [04:09] Discusses lack of salary at London Institute and working from the heart; continued involvement in HE and FE areas [05:21] Feelings on reflection on this period of time; longest involvement in career was in initiation and formation of London Institute; evolution over time; meeting needs of London. [07:38] Comparison of current institution to original vision; felt it exceeds original small-scale operation; feels it is a successful and unique university. [08:54] Feels there were individuals who contributed more than himself and entitled to credit. [10:03] |