ࡱ> xzw  bjbj~~ .;u+U(} 8$ <lII_uuPPPd!dPPPPTPuuPPPXuuPPPP3=H!upOL0,j!Pj!3P3PPP :   UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE UNION Introduction represents over one thousand lecturers delivering education in adult prisons in England. We also represent members working in Young Offenders Institutions. In preparation for this response we conducted an online survey of our members working in prisons. The survey invited their views on a selection of the questions from the consultation which we considered most relevant to the work that they carry out. We also invited general views from members by email. 10 per cent of our members have responded. The short period allowed for the consultation will have influenced the level of response. The response below is therefore informed by the views of individual members. However, it should be stressed that the (and one of its predecessor unions, NATFHE) has a long history of active involvement with offender learning policy and has well-established structures for the representation of members views. Many of the issues raised by the review have been extensively discussed within the in the past and are the subject of established policy. Response Q 1: How well do offender learners achieve and enjoy their learning? Our members responded very positively to this question, reporting high levels of satisfaction among their learners. This bears out the findings of the pilot study of offender learning satisfaction published by the LSC in 2008. The majority of learners in the pilot study were satisfied with their overall learning experience (81 per cent, including 55 per cent who were extremely or very satisfied) and felt that their course or training was meeting their needs. Just 5 per cent of learners were dissatisfied. On the quality of teaching, the report records that: Satisfaction with the quality of teaching was also high (almost two-thirds were extremely or very satisfied), with learners rating teachers, tutors and trainers consistently highly across a range of different indicators. Most agreed that they were treated fairly and with respect by teaching staff. (p. 2) Many of our members emphasise the value that learners place on the gaining of qualifications and report high success rates where offenders are able to complete courses, both vocational and academic. However, our members would also say that they are struggling to maintain these high standards in an environment that is increasingly hostile to effective offender learning. We comment on the factors that have created this situation below, but in summary the barriers to progress in offender learning most frequently mentioned by respondents to our survey are: the competitive re-tendering system which creates instability, and encourages bad management practices, including bullying, and which also leads to cost-cutting in the pursuit of profit maximisation and attacks on staff pay and conditions; over-use of casualised forms of employment, leading to high staff turnover and the failure to build up experience and specialist expertise in the prison education workforce; lack of access for teaching staff to continuous professional development and career progression; a management remote from the point of delivery, especially in the case of multiple contract holders, with a consequent exclusion of staff from education decision-making and the relative isolation of offender learning from the rest of the education service; frustration of education and training aims by the demands of the prison regime, particularly the high level of prisoner transfer or churn caused by overcrowding; continued failure to put in place an effective system for the transfer of prisoner education and training records; the lack of IT provision in prisons, both for education purposes and for supporting the work of teaching staff, despite the fact that pilot exercises and experience in other countries have demonstrated that security issues can be overcome if the proper resources are invested; the burden of form-filling and tick-box bureaucracy, which together with over-complex funding arrangements, absorbs the time of tutors which would be better deployed in the classroom or workshop. Q 2: How well do offender learners improve their economic and social well-being through learning and development? Inevitably, our members response to this question is subjective. Some report a noticeable improvement in confidence and self-worth in their learners, particularly as a result of concrete achievement in the form of qualifications gained. Tutors have little or no feedback on the fate of their students post-release, apart from occasionally being asked for references. However, they make a very important point. The consolidation of the improvement in offenders lives brought about by engagement with learning in prison is heavily dependent on the support that they do or do not receive on release. The strains on the support services, such as the probation services, can result in missed opportunities to build on the education and training received in prison. In this sense the educational journey of offenders can start successfully within the prison walls, only to be dissipated on the outside where, at least in principle, opportunities should be wider. Q 3: Should the delivery of offender learning focus more on outcomes than targets? How should success be measured? There is strong opposition to target-based delivery among our members. They believe that targets can distort prison education by limiting the scope of tutors to match provision to the needs of individual students. Also, where targets are linked to funding and to the securing and renewal of contracts it can lead to the bureaucratisation of provision and to undue pressure being placed on staff by managers, including bullying. Success should be measured in terms of the distance travelled by offenders during their learning in prison. This may be indicated in part by qualifications gained where that is relevant, but also by learners overall achievements compared to their starting points. It is essential that measures of achievement capture the immense challenge that many offender learners present at the start of their learning in the form of initial reluctance to learn, previous experience of educational and social exclusion, often very low levels of basic skills (something that has been well-documented in successive government reports) and multiple personal problems, including high incidences of drug dependency. There is no tougher job in education than teaching within prisons. Seemingly small gains can in fact reflect huge effort on the part of learners and extraordinary professionalism and dedication on the part of tutors in conditions that often seem to be designed to frustrate the efforts of both. Tick-box targets simply do not measure the reality of offender learning in our prisons. Q 4: What is the role of the careers information and advice service in respect of offenders and how effective is it? Our members place great importance on the provision of high quality effective careers information and advice to offenders. It is essential to ensuring that the impact of the work that they do is maximised by leading to practical improvements in the employability of offenders and thereby in the reduction of re-offending. Many members comment on their own informal involvement in the provision of careers information and advice to learners, often carried out in their own time. They comment on the impact of the separate contracting of careers information and advice services (CIA) within the offender learning system. Some feel that this has weakened the integration of CIA and education and training and has led to poorer services for prisoners. They observe different agendas, targets and management practices between CIA and education and training providers, which can lead to a damaging disconnect. The responses that we have received do at the very least suggest the need for a review of this area, with the aim of ensuring consistency of provision and effective integration between CIA and offender learning. Q 5: To what extent has the introduction of the Learner Plan system (for transferring learner data as an offender moves into, through and out of custody) reduced the incident of repeat assessment and the learner demotivation to which that leads? 80 per cent of our members who responded to the online survey or by email report continuing problems in this area. Some typical comments: If we want to know what a student has achieved at their previous prison we generally have to contact the prison (by phone) to get this information, only occasionally do any notes reach our department. Yes repeat assessments are happening. We don't even get information from our own assessment people let alone other prisons. I think this was a much needed improvement, and shows great promise. However, it is still in the early stages and is not being used fully by all prisons, so there is still a gap in the information we are able to retrieve. Also, any information prior to the system's introduction may be missed from the data collection, so it will be a while before we have solid, reliable information. The last respondent suggests that there has been some improvement, but there is no doubt that this problem remains a major bugbear for many prison educators. It is a problem that was identified many years ago and has been commented on repeatedly by House of Commons Select Committees, the National Audit Office and by Ofsted. The damage done to offender learning and the frustrations, inefficiency and demoralisation that it causes tutors has been well-rehearsed and we will not repeat the tale of woe here. The fact is that this is an administrative problem that should not be beyond the wit of government to solve once and for all. What is required is the necessary IT resources, information for all concerned with the operation of the system, together with commitment from education and training providers and the prison authorities, nationally and locally, to making it work. Q 6: How effectively does the provision in both custody and the community meet the needs and interests of users? Our members have responded only in relation to education and training in custody. They believe that they have achieved a great deal in recent years to meet offender learning needs in terms of the core curriculum of basic literacy, numeracy and ITC. However, there are concerns that the target-driven focus up to level 2 has tended to elbow out of the curriculum the development of the softer but no less important life skills that are essential to offenders employability and future avoidance of re-offending. Also, some members report a reduction in opportunities for more advanced study in arts and humanities, something which can often have a transformative effect on offenders lives. There is undoubtedly an unmet demand from prisoners for access to vocational training in particular trades. While there is a laudable emphasis in Next Steps in improving the relationship between education and training in prison and gaining employment on release, there is a large gap between this aspiration and the resourcing of prison education and training. It is an inescapable fact that a serious determination to improve the employability of offenders much be matched by serious additional investment. Since employability is the key to the reduction in re-offending, this is an investment that will pay for itself in the long run. Q 9: What further actions should be taken to target resources in order to have the greatest impact on reducing re-offending by equipping offenders with the skills and qualifications they need to secure and sustain employment? This is a very difficult question to answer in the current climate of high unemployment and imminent public expenditure cuts. We do not agree that it is a question of a further targeting of resources, but rather of a need to raise the status of prison education within the prison establishment overall and to resource it more generously. The evidence for the benefit to offenders in engaging in education and training while in custody are overwhelming, but still only a minority of prisoners participate. We favour some of the suggestions in Next Steps for motivating more prisoners to undertake learning, although our members believe that this should be done through positive incentives and not by means of threatened withdrawal of privileges or other punitive measures. Dealing with prisoners in the classroom who are there unwillingly is not a way forward. We would also resist narrow conceptions of employability. Education for prisoners, as for all people, has great intrinsic benefits which can permanently enrich their lives. Prison education needs to be sufficiently well resourced to enable the tailoring of programme of learning to the needs of students, without having necessarily to link to specific forms of employment which in any case may never materialise. Also, tutors should have the scope to challenge their students to take their education as far as they can and not necessarily be satisfied with achieving targeted, pre-defined levels of employability. Q 10: What factors do we need to take into account in redistributing resources so that the right provision reaches the most appropriate groups of learners in custodial or community settings? This question implies that some areas of provision are over-resourced and that redistribution rather than an overall increase in resources is the answer. Certainly as far as prison education and training is concerned, we reject this view. Indeed, in recent months our members have been reporting increasing pressure to reduce costs and in relation to one large provider we have been fighting job losses among tutors on a large scale. One of our members has responded succinctly to this question, identifying the key factors as follows: Smaller class sizes, high quality teaching with experienced prison education lecturers, appropriate offenders being put onto appropriate classes, which reflects their own personal learning needs and length of sentence. Despite the extensive data now available on the shocking incidence of functional illiteracy and innumeracy among prisoners, as well as the high incidence of learning disabilities and mental health and behavioural problems, there is a still a lack of appreciation of the demands for specialist skills that this creates among prison teaching staff. There is an urgent need for more specialist support and training for these staff, as well as the time and facilities to enable them to meet the complex needs of individual prisoners. This is one example of an area that needs extra resources, but not by depriving other areas of some of their resources. Q 11: Are there aspects of learning for which the current arrangements over provide or aspects where a different mix of provision is needed? Our members do not identify over-provision as a problem since they believe offender learning as a whole to be under-resourced in relation to its societal importance. However, one theme that does emerge from members comments is the gap, mentioned earlier, between the aspiration to equip more prisoners with vocational skills and the shortage of a wide range of well-equipped workshops and related training facilities within prisons. Q 12: How might we achieve better value for money through redistribution of resources? How can we best allocate resources to meet the needs of offenders seeking higher education and distance learning options? There is some evidence from our members responses of a decrease in HE opportunities for prisoners, for example, less access to Open University courses because of funding restrictions. One member from a large local prison reports that previous long-standing and very close links with the local university have virtually ceased because of funding restrictions. He also refers to research showing negligible rates of re-offending for offenders who had pursued higher education while in custody at this particular prison. s position on this is clear. The encouragement and facilitation of offender involvement in higher education is highly desirable for rehabilitation and the reduction of re-offending. It should therefore be funded by government. Q 15: How well have partnerships between learning providers, prison staff and other agencies evolved to the benefit of offender learners? Where partnerships have proved to be ineffective, how can that be addressed? We do not have extensive information on this. Some members report the development of effective partnerships with some local employers and that these are very popular potential employment routes for offenders. There must be some doubt about the capacity to expand these sorts of partnerships significantly in the current economic climate unless government is prepared to provide effective financial incentives to employers. Unfortunately, it would seem that partnerships with FE and HE institutions have weakened or been lost over recent years as a result of the encouragement of private providers through the competitive contract system. This is one of the reasons why has always opposed that system. We continue to believe that offender learning should be fully integrated with our public system of further and adult education and that that is best done if further education colleges are funded to provide all prison education and training in partnerships with their local prisons. Q 18: How might prison learning providers, and those who provide careers information and advice to prisoners, support prison colleagues in developing prison regimes progressively so that they become more realistic workplaces with training to support employment on release? We mentioned above our concerns about the separate organisation of CIA and the problems that this can pose for effective integration with educational provision. On the whole our members report effective involvement in supporting prisoners for prison work, for example, by delivering basic training and qualifications in areas like hygiene, cleaning, manual handling, health and safety and so on. The scope for realistic workplaces within prisons is limited by the nature of the prison regime, which is of course outside the control of our members. Q 19: What, if any, are the key issues that frustrate this ambition at present? Some members report instances the very unhelpful practice of prisoners being given jobs without the requirement first to complete the relevant education and training courses. On a more general level, the dominance of the requirements of the prison regime, particularly security, continues to cause problems in many establishments. Our members fully understand and respect the need for security, but the importance of their own work is not always appreciated and fully supported by prison managements (although relations with prison officers is usually very good). Much can depend on the effectiveness and influence of individual heads of learning and skills. A stronger lead from the Prison Service on the importance of offender learning would help, together perhaps with more collaborative joint training between prison and education managers, which should improve mutual understanding and communication. Over the last few years the has promoted the need for a procedure to protect our members from arbitrary and usually permanent exclusion from prisons for alleged security breaches. A procedure affording them some basic rights in these circumstances is currently with the Department for Justice for agreement. The consistent application of this procedure within the system and its strong backing by governors will send an important and encouraging message to prison educators that they valued as colleagues who deserve respect and fair treatment. Q 22: How might we increase the use of technology in offender learning to make effective use of recent developments? As we had expected, this question produced a big response from our members. Rather like the transfer of prisoner records, the highly restricted access to IT for teaching purposes within prisons is a long-standing source of intense frustration for ICT tutors. The frustration is compounded by the popularity of ICT among offender learners and the extremely good results obtained in the form of qualifications and levels achieved, albeit over a range of computing that would be considered very narrow in an average primary school. This comment from a member is representative: Prison security is a major headache where IT is concerned - in light of recent high profile data losses this is understandable, however, still a major hindrance. A lot of resources are web based something we as yet still do not have access to despite being part of the west midlands test bed and having had virtual campus machines installed for over 12-18 months now with no-one having accessed them yet. Even then the limited net access will be restricted to one class only. I believe there is good enough technology out there to restrict and control offenders access to the outside world via the WWW yet still allowing them to access many FREE online educational/learning materials such as the BBC site. Digital cameras/video recording equipment that the learners can use to stay in touch with technology but also to further access learning in areas such as photography and video editing perhaps. It is clear that modern technology can overcome many if not all of the potential security risks involved in a more extensive use of IT and the internet in prisons. We are aware that work is going on in this area, but our members fail to understand why it is taking so long to crack this particular nut. The potential educational benefits of doing so are very considerable. Q 26: How effectively does the provider engage with users to support and promote improvement? Our members are split about 50:50 between those who report little or no effort by providers to gain feedback from learners and those who report use of satisfaction surveys or student feedback forms. However, even where the latter is done, there is often very little feedback or discussion of how learners views might inform future practice. This is clearly an area where improvement is needed, including, very importantly, in the provision by providers of relevant CPD for their teaching staff. Q 28: Has the perceived gap of professionalism between the teaching workforce in offender learning compared with those in other settings narrowed, and to what extent might this be further improved? Regrettably, we have to report a negative response to this question. Here is a typical comment from a member: No. Prison educators are treated as second class to FE teachers and third class to school teachers. Our pay and benefits does not reflect our work and dedication. We are the poor relation in education. Offender learning fails to attract dynamic new blood due to the poor surroundings and pay. In recent years prison education has become a more stressful, pressurised occupation, mainly as the result of the involvement of for-profit providers intent on extracting as much gain as possible from the contracts that they have won. They are often run and managed by people for whom educational values are not always the overriding ones and who are geographically remote from the classrooms and workshops where the education and training for which they are responsible takes place. They have also been allowed to cut corners in provision usually by the adoption of poor employment practices which have resulted in a deterioration in working conditions and career prospects for many of our members with an inevitable knock-on effect on their morale and their ability to achieve the high levels of professional performance to which they aspire. The pricing out of many FE college providers from prison education has led to a greater degree of separation of offender learning from the rest of the education system and a corresponding professional isolation of many of our members. Unfortunately some of the remaining FE college providers have recently resorted to copying some of the worst practices of their commercial competitors. The contemplates with horror the likely impact on prison education of the public expenditure cuts currently being contemplated by government. Q 29: How has the alignment of offender learning within similar learning in mainstream colleges benefited learners? As stated above, our main concern is the loss of direct links to colleges following the part privatisation of provision and the introduction of the competitive tendering system. However, at least in terms of the qualifications framework, a more consistent alignment of prison education with the general system has helped. It is essential that prisoners are able to continue their education post-release in as seamless a way as possible and also, of course, crucial that employers understand and recognise any qualifications that they have gained in custody. Q 30: How effectively do teaching, training and assessment support learning and development Obviously, good teaching, training and assessment are essential to effective learning. Teaching in prisons is a particularly challenging task requiring specialist skills and experience. At the moment the system relies on and sometimes exploits the dedication of teachers to their students and their belief in the importance of the work that they do. There is an over-reliance on the use of casualised employed staff, such as part-time hourly paid and a neglect of serious workforce development. More recently, we have seen aggressive attacks by both private and college providers on the pay and conditions of service of our members working in prisons. This is not a recipe for maintaining a high quality, professional workforce and for attracting new able teachers into this difficult, but potentially very rewarding, specialism. The would like to see workforce development built into provider contracts and rigorously policed through a compliance regime with real teeth. This should include a requirement both to encourage tutors to undertake continuous professional development, but also to ensure that CPD appropriate to their work is available to them. This is simply not happening at the moment. Also, the uncertainty built into the system by the contract re-tendering process militates against the establishment of a stable employment environment in which expertise can be built up and retained, and in which staff can feel that they have career progression opportunities within prison education and training. These are not just trade union points they are essential to effective teaching, training and assessment and ultimately to the achievement of the governments crime reduction targets. Q 37: What question would you have liked us to ask that we havent posed and what would your response be? very much welcomes this review and is very pleased to have been given the opportunity to contribute. A dialogue between practitioners and policy-makers is very valuable for both and we hope that it will be continued and expanded. However, we are disappointed that there are no direct references in the consultation document to the role of teaching staff. The morale of our members in prison education is at all-time low. The following quotes convey some of the reasons for that: Over the last ten years I have watched as prison education was contracted out, first to local FE colleges, then to larger colleges further away, and, most recently, to a vast FE college who now have an effective monopoly on education in the sector. Since the creation of OLASS, more and more bean counters have been employed, elaborate administrative and auditing systems put in place, loading prison teachers with a crushing weight of paperwork to deal with. There is no perceptible improvement in outcome. The prisoners and their educational needs are actually the last people to be considered. Recently the College have made, and continue to make, savage cuts to prison education departments in order to maximise their profits. Prison teachers, a dedicated lot who believe in what they are doing, are now facing far worse pay and conditions than teachers outside and it is becoming difficult to recruit and retain suitable staff. I love my job, but the name on my payslip has changed three times, as I and my colleagues are bundled up and sold on to the lowest bidder each time the contracts are up for renewal. Yet my loyalty is to the prison I work in, and the prison staff, colleagues and learners I work with. Why is prison education put out to tender every four/five years as each tender is unsettling for staff and good professional staff leave with every change of employer? Just look at latest tender and how many good staff have now left education. Funding - It should be flexible - local to the prison and not invested in large organisations that then cream off the investment by underpaying the staff and providing little or no funding for resources and staff training. If it stays in the hands of those whose only concern is to make profits then it might as well close down now. How does your employer ensure it attracts and retains the best staff to educate offenders given that re-offending has been demonstrated to be directly reduced by engagement with education? They don't - they create inequality and disparity with our mainstream colleagues through savage cuts in salary and terms and conditions for a job that is if anything harder than an equivalent role outside. Ultimately this will result in second class teachers populating prison education which is the very place you need the best.  National Learner Satisfaction Survey: Offenders Learning and Skills Service Pilot. LSC January 2008  e.g. Meeting needs? The Offenders Learning and Skills Service. Committee of Public Accounts, 2008  2008 report on the Service  e.g. Learning and Skills for Offenders Serving Short Custodial Sentences. 2009  It has been estimated that the financial returns from prison education results in a 25% reduction in the 12 billion total cost of offending by ex-prisoners in the first year (John Bynner (2009), Lifelong learning and crime: a life-course perspective, IFLL Public Value Paper 4, NIACE, p.9).  In 2008 conducted a major survey of occupational stress experienced by its members. Members in prison education consistently reported lower wellbeing than the average for the target group (which included the education sector) in the Health and Safety Executives survey Psychosocial Working Conditions in Britain in 2008. Their well-being was also consistently lower than measured among members working in further and higher education. ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/f/ucu_pestress_dec08.pdf" www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/f/ucu_pestress_dec08.pdf)      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 2 ,\ @{"U#'(A)))**,,--.-/-I-J-X-Y-Z-^-//H3S365677;8F8;<>>??0BBtDGE;HILN.PP8VVXXhM2hyJ6B*^Jph333hyJB*^Jph333 hyJ6hHhyJ6hyJ6B*^Jph333hHhyJ6B*^Jph333hKjhyJ6jhyJ0JUhyJ hyJ5=+, [ \ e f LM=LMdy & FgdyJgdyJ$a$gdyJy?@%&z{""T#U#''((@)A) * ***,,gdyJ & FgdyJ,]-^-////22556566|9}9;;<<>>??/B0BBBsDtDFEgdyJFEGEPGQG:H;HIILLNN-P.P~PP0Q1QTT7V8VVVXXXX{\|\gdyJX[[y\]S^F` a~abcchhjkq6rttwwwwxxxyyyyy,{0{|-|g|j|||7}8}9}:};}ۯ۪ۗۦۗۈہۈۈہz h|lZhyJ hg>hyJhg>hyJ6B*^Jph333hJNshyJ6B*^Jph333hyJ hyJ5 jhyJ0JB*U^Jph333h#FhyJ6B*^Jph333hyJ5B*^Jph333hyJB*^Jph333hyJ6B*^Jph333huhhyJ6B*^Jph333,|\]]R^S^E`F` a a|a}abb hhhhjjkkXnYnqq5r6r!s"ssgdyJssttwwxxyy.{/{9}:};}}~%~w~:ށ߁ 7$8$H$gdyJgdyJ;}<}=}}}}}~~ ~ ~$~%~&~,~v~w~x~y~~~~~(=stu}~ƀǀ[\]^۹ۮ񡗡~0jh7hyJ5B*CJU\^JaJphhyJCJ^JaJh7hyJCJ^JaJh"#GhyJCJaJ'h"#GhyJ6B*CJ]^JaJphhyJB*CJ^JaJph!h"#GhyJB*CJ^JaJph hyJ6hyJjhyJ0JU,^ہ܁݁ށ߁ ϶듋{ h|lZhyJhyJmHnHujhyJUhyJh7hyJCJ^JaJ"h7hyJ0J5CJ\^JaJ0jh7hyJ5B*CJU\^JaJph6jh7hyJ5B*CJU\^JaJph'h7hyJ5B*CJ\^JaJph $a$gdyJ ,1h. A!"#$% kDyK 4www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/f/ucu_pestress_dec08.pdfyK http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/f/ucu_pestress_dec08.pdfyX;H,]ą'c02 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~8XV~_HmH nH sH tH H`H Normal CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 44 DHeader  B#>> D Header CharCJOJQJaJ4 @4 D0Footer  B#>!> D0 Footer CharCJOJQJaJ>@2> A~c Footnote TextCJaJDAD A~cFootnote Text CharOJQJ@&@Q@ A~cFootnote ReferenceH*6U@a6 7 Hyperlink >*B*phPK![Content_Types].xmlj0 u$Nwc$ans@8JbVKS(.Y$8MVgLYS]"(U֎_o[gv; f>KH|;\XV!]օ Oȥsh]Hg3߶PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!\theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOoE#F{o'NDuر i-q;N3' G$$DAč*iEP~wq4;{o?g^;N:$BR64Mvsi-@R4Œ mUb V*XX! cyg$w.Q "@oWL8*Bycjđ0蠦r,[LC9VbX*x_yuoBL͐u_. DKfN1엓:+ۥ~`jn[Zp֖zg,tV@bW/Oټl6Ws[R?S֒7 _כ[֪7 _w]ŌShN'^Bxk_[dC]zOլ\K=.:@MgdCf/o\ycB95B24S CEL|gO'sקo>W=n#p̰ZN|ӪV:8z1f؃k;ڇcp7#z8]Y / \{t\}}spķ=ʠoRVL3N(B<|ݥuK>P.EMLhɦM .co;əmr"*0#̡=6Kր0i1;$P0!YݩjbiXJB5IgAФ޲a6{P g֢)҉-Ìq8RmcWyXg/u]6Q_Ê5H Z2PU]Ǽ"GGFbCSOD%,p 6ޚwq̲R_gJS֣9)嗛(:/ak;6j11太x~<:ɮ>O&kNa4dht\?J&l O٠NRpwhpse)tp)af] 27n}mk]\S,+a2g^Az )˙>E G鿰L7)'PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 /_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!\theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] -%I%X%/[ zg<c z ***-X;}^ BGJKy,FE|\s CDEFHIL $&-!"lX8@0(  B S  ?=u=u,?@:u;uyyyyyyyyyyyyyz z z:u;uyyyyyyyyyyyyyz z z5[LLh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hH5[         yJ;uyyyyyy z z@ z`@Unknown GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 ArialOFranklinGotITC-Book[FranklinGotITC-BookItalicUFranklinGotMdITC-Heavy7 Verdana? Courier New;Wingdings"1hFFfa Q/e Y!4dtx!2Q@X ?Yu82! xx Paul CottrellDeborah Phillips  Oh+'0 $ H T ` lx'Paul Cottrell Normal.dotmDeborah Phillips2Microsoft Macintosh Word@F#@ɗdZ@n!u@n!u a ՜.+,D՜.+,p,x   ' University and College UnionQt  Title$(V^j_PID_LINKBASE _PID_HLINKS'AA;http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/f/ucu_pestress_dec08.pdfr  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMOPQRSTUWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefhijklmnpqrstuvyRoot Entry FL!u{Data N1TableVz!WordDocument.SummaryInformation(gDocumentSummaryInformation8oCompObj`ObjectPoolL!uL!u F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8