You’ll be hard-pressed to find much about it online, in emails from the university, or through consultation with lecturers and students. York’s proposed ‘joint venture’ with INTO University Partnerships – a for-profit company which focuses on recruiting and teaching international students – has largely gone under the radar. I came across the plans not through the university or YUSU, but through a UCU lecturer’s union briefing chucked on a few tables in Vanbrugh.
The plans are to partially-outsource the recruitment and English language-teaching of international students by Autumn 2015, to an INTO-run building on Hes East near Goodricke. It appears they’ve already started the process, with opaque talks apparently being underway for half a year. The UCU discovered the plans through a ‘by-the-way’ comment during an unrelated VC presentation late last year.
Although the full plans aren’t completely clear yet (due to a lack of information and transparency) it looks likely that the uni will emulate other universities that have bunked up with INTO in the past. Many of which seem to have ended in failure.
Let’s look at the partnerships at UEA, Exeter and Newcastle universities. According to Freedom of Information Requests, in the best case scenarios, four or five in every ten international students ‘recruited’ failed to progress onto one of the university’s courses. That opens up the risk of huge financial losses for the university.
The joint venture at Queen’s Belfast lost over £1.5 million in 2009/10, and was still losing £630k two years down the line. At Manchester College, the whole venture was called off in 2009 following £1.4m losses.
It was a similar story for City University – £2.5m losses in 2009/10. That’s nearly 300 students’ £9k fees down the pan.
INTO promised profits but actually wreaked financial chaos. Does the university really want to take such an enormous gamble with students’ money?
Where profits are sought and achieved however, the means are risky. In a bid to fill international student numbers paying sky-high fees at Exeter, the quality of those recruited was said – by management – to be ‘lower than those recruited by the university’. What can the university do about it? Locked into a long-term joint venture, not a lot. Moreover, the university – not INTO – sponsor students’ visas, meaning if INTO messes up, it’s the university that gets hit.
Moreover, new workers’ pay and conditions are likely to be affected. With no union recognition or public service ethos, INTO could put non-transferred staff on zero-hours contracts, lay off workers, and strip back hard-fought conditions. Even the company’s chair said ‘rates of pay are probably worse’. Their contracts say you can be sacked for actions which are ‘likely to prejudice the interests of the Company whether or not such conduct occurs in the course of your employment’.
What could that mean? Speaking out against malpractice and mistreatment? It’s vague enough to be very dangerous indeed. The situation looks frightening for our Centre for English Language Teaching and its extremely (and rightfully) worried staff.
Finally, a company part-owned by a private equity firm is likely to want to expand its involvement with the university in the future. Will we even know the extent of its involvement? After all, it will be allowed to trade under ‘University of York’ branding.
Students and staff should – like 96% at Queen’s University – reject this whole dodgy scheme and keep services in-house.