Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Tertiary education’ Category

English defends community education

Posted by David Shearer on November 1st, 2011

The government cut funding to Adult Community Education in 2009. The number of schools being funded fell from 212 to just 23. More than 150,000 New Zealanders who once attended night school now don’t have the opportunity. Great swathes of NZ no longer have schools offering courses as they once did.

The enormous value of community education was acknowledged by Bill English in 2005, while Education Spokesperson. He warned of the bureaucrats who wanted to take it away.

Here’s the first few lines and last paragraph of a speech he gave :

Community education has a long and honourable history. I recall my mother going off to night time classes in furniture restoration, a quiet space in the busy life of a household of 12 children. In a painting class I visited a few years ago a man told about how the tutor had changed his life by challenging him, teaching him and making him finish the picture. He described how he had become part of a warm community. There are thousands of stories about how human needs are met by the collective and aspirational activity of learning.

A great and warm story, experiences that many of us have also discovered … until a year or two ago that is. Now those sorts of tales are thin on the ground. All for saving $13.5 million.

Here’s how he finishes:

I support community based less formal learning opportunities. I want to work with you to retain the funding arrangement that allowed community learning to be so successful for so long, and develop new mechanisms with the same qualities if your needs can be better met. In the end community learning should be driven by the community. It is not enough just to engage your organisations in consultation. You need the authority to make the decisions that make a difference to the community and the people you know. I want to make sure you have it.

He didn’t stop Tolley putting in the boot, despite being Finance Minister. Pity he didn’t reflect on those warm memories then.


Restoring the Refugee Study Grant

Posted by Grant Robertson on October 15th, 2011

In Labour’s tertiary education policy announced by David Shearer earlier this week was a small, but very important commitment from Labour. If elected to government we will restore the Refugee Study Grant. This grant was canned by the National Government in the 2009 Budget with effect from this year. When I was Tertiary Education Spokesperson for a while I met several people who had greatly benefited from the grant, and I am so pleased that we have committed to restoring it.

What the grant has provided is support for refugees mainly for bridging courses or other courses to meet pre-requisites. While as permanent residents refugees can access student loans, many need support to get to the level to be able to undertake tertiary study. Not having the support can mean that opportunities are missed and refugees dont get the kick start that can allow them to achieve their potential.

Mohammed Amri is one example. He was one of the Tampa boat boys. A bright guy, but with little experience of English or learning in a New Zealand environment, who took language, reading and writing skill courses that got him his start on the way to a degree. Another example is a young woman I met, who’s story is included in the publication by Changemakers Refugee Forum as part of their campaign to see refugees recognised as an equity group. She was 19 and still at school here trying to catch up with her peers. She did well, but was not ready to do tertiary study. She was losing motivation for school, doing long hours working at a supermarket, acting as an interpreter for her family, and wanted to get on with her life. She accessed the refugee study grant, got the support to lift her literacy skills, understand the pecularities of New Zealand langauge, and gain entry to a degree at Victoria University. She’s doing really well.

All of this came from a fund that used about $1.3 million a year. In the grand scheme of the Budget, not that much. But it was a lower priority for National in that particular Budget than extra funding for private schools. I am really proud that Labour is saying we will give some extra support to people who have had to flee their homes, who have endured hardship, so that they may achieve their potential, have a fair go at owning their future, and fully contribute to our society. Its the right thing to do.


A note to those who supported VSM

Posted by David Shearer on October 13th, 2011

Massey Unniversity has responded to the Voluntary Student Membership Act by increasing its fees next year by an amount about equivalent to that paid by students to their Student Associations.

Just to note:
- it seems like the fees are compulsory
- the government will have a big say on what the increase can be used for – not even the university
- it looks like students through their association may be able to negotiate with the university about what services are kept – but no guarantees
- it’s likely to be the model that will spread across NZ – I was in Waikato University yesterday and they are looking at something similar

So all those who backed VSM will still pay the same, but you won’t have any real say about how your money is spent – even less if you decide not to belong to the student association. Taxation without representation it’s called.

And now you don’t even get the choice of a referendum.
What was wrong with an opt-out clause and accountability around association spending as we suggested?

Well done. Everyone loses.


Labour’s Tertiary policy announced

Posted by David Shearer on October 10th, 2011

We have just put out Labour’s tertiary policy. It follows on the big effort that we’ve made to lift skills in our workforce. No need to remind people that times are tough and it’s tough getting any new money. But I think we’ve got a pretty solid mix here that will make a difference.

The key aim is produce the best graduates we can – and keep them in NZ – to help us grow a smart, high-value economy.

The policy has some specifics targetting some of our smartest. It puts back the post-doctoral scholarships for scientists who finished their PhDs that was canned last year. This is critical for not only keeping our best here and giving them time to consolidate their studies, but bringing some of our best back. After all, we’ve already invested massively in these people.

We’ve also put additional funding aside for funding our very best where they are world beating. The ‘brilliant scientist’ concept is simple – give sufficient funding to our best scientists and academics to employ the staff they want, buy equipment they need and then let them get on with it. Smart people attract others – from around the world. Backing our best with resources will grow expertise in core areas where our talent is top shelf. And we DO have some fantastic talent. Those researchers will receive funds personally and are free to choose the NZ institution – or business – where they want to set up.

Other parts of the policy: we must maintain and raise the levels of our universities. Recent results show we are slipping in the world rankings and there’s little doubt that funding is a key part. We run universities that are some of the most efficient in the world, where an extra dollar can really make a difference. Our policy maintains our level by inflation proofing our universities and sets our commitment to increase it.

We need to maintain the affordability of our tertiary institutions so all NZers that reach the standard can access a high quality tertiary education, no matter what background they come from. There’s aspects in the policy here for that too, fixing tuition increases at 4% and restoring $2 million to the Training Incentive Allowance to give a lift to those who want to get a tertiary education – solo mums for example – to get some support. Remember this is the one that helped Paula Bennett before this government axed it.

And we’ve put back the money for adult and community education. Cutting $13.5 million and collapsing it was a travesty. More than 150,000 people no longer access night schools who once did. This is a no-brainer for people wanting to get back into learning.


National MP Opposes VSM Bill

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 28th, 2011

Here is a video taken of Michael Woodhouse at a public forum at Otago University in July. He quite clearly states that he is opposed to the Bill in its current form (ie the form that it is in right now). Today, in the Third Reading Michael Woodhouse and other National MPs will vote to pass the Bill into law.

Michael also goes on to assure people that the Bill in its current form won’t pass into law this year. I have heard from other students that is the same commitment they got from other National MPs. This was misleading students and the National MPs should be ashamed of themselves. They heard the evidence at the Select Committee, and they know that tertiary institutions do not want the Bill, the vast majority of other submitters do not want the Bill, but they are still supporting the ideological crusade of their crumbling coalition partner.

Michael also suggests that Labour should promote the ‘opt out’ compromise solution. We did. It was rejected by ACT and National.

So the question for Michael Woodhouse (and other National MPs) is, why will he vote to pass a Bill today that he does not support and that he knows will destroy student services and advocacy?


Students will lose, but still pay

Posted by David Shearer on September 26th, 2011

ACT and National will push voluntary student association bill through parliament this week on the last Members Day. We can expect a good deal of student opposition around the country. Good for them.

Next year, students won’t pay any fees to student associations. That’s inevitable, would you pay your council rates if they were voluntary? Wherever student associations have become voluntary they effectively collapsed.

What happens next?

Well, the university, polytech or institution will step in, charge students a levy, and continue some of the services through subcontracting companies or students to do it for them. It’s already been gazetted (NZ Gazette No. 138). Institutions can charge students for: advocacy and legal advice, careers advice and guidance, counselling services, employment information, financial support and advice, health servieces, childcare facilities, sports and recreation facilities.

In other words, all the stuff that supports students and makes these institutions of learning vital, interesting places.

So, voluntary student association membership will result in … money taken off students compulsorily, leaving them with no power to determine what services are kept. Taxation without representation is one way it can be represented.

The National-Act spin that student associations are the last bastions of compulsory unionism is bollocks … it’s idealogy pure and simple.

We could’ve had a good, enduring Bill with an opt out clause and some rules around accountability of student association spending. I’d spoken a number of times with Heather Roy about some possibilities. She was willing to compromise when she her Bill looked in doubt but held the hard line when she thought she’d get it through.

Too bad, fortunately it won’t last long.


New Zealand’s first tertiary high school

Posted by David Shearer on June 29th, 2011

Met with Stuart Middleton at the Manukau Institute of Technology today, the driver behind NZ’s first tertiary high school where students are simultaneously enrolled at school and MIT. The idea is that they transition from school, where most are about to leave anyway, and pick up a course at MIT. It’s a model that deserves copying.

Mainly because students can see some outcome of their learning – and therefore get really passionate about it – the Tertiary High boasts impressive success. Their latest results for NCEA Level 1 for Maori and Pasifika are below, and remember this is from a group that otherwise were on the path to dropping out of school.

Maori

Nationally – 60.8% at MIT – 80%

Pasifika

Nationally – 54% at MIT – 71%

Pretty good results. We have a 20% drop out rate in NZ - 20% of 16 year olds are no longer at school. The big factor, according to Stuart, seems to be that once kids drop out it’s really difficult to pick them up again. Instead if they move to some other learning, it doesn’t matter which so much, but one that gives a qualification, the chances are incredibly high that they go on to another qualification.

Not rocket science, perhaps, but a scheme that’s based on principles worth instituting into policy.


When being a union member makes a difference

Posted by Trevor Mallard on May 25th, 2011

The Guardian has an instructive article on the rights of abused workers in the States. It is based on the current Strauss-Kahn case and shows the danger of unfair dismissal laws of the type Kate Wilkinson and John Key aspire to.

One very important fact has been largely absent from the coverage of the sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and, until latterly, leading candidate to be the next president of France. The hotel housekeeper whom he allegedly assaulted was represented by a union.

The reason that this is an important part of the story is that it is likely that Strauss-Kahn’s alleged victim might not have felt confident enough to pursue the issue with either her supervisors or law enforcement agencies, if she had not been protected by a union contract. The vast majority of hotel workers in the United States, like most workers in the private sector, do not enjoy this protection.
(more…)


The Quake and Politics

Posted by Grant Robertson on March 2nd, 2011

Just over a week on my thoughts constantly turn to the people of Christchurch. I am thinking particularly of those who have lost loved ones. For many this is a time of unbearable heartache as they wait for news, any news, of their nearest and dearest, knowing all the while their likely fate. I have been close to two of these situations in the last week and it is truly testing the friends and families to endure the hurt, frustration and uncertainty. I also think of those who are homeless, or in wrecked homes or in streets, especially those in the eastern suburbs still without power, water and sewerage.

The people of Christchurch and their well-being is  the chief concern of all in politics right now, whatever party we are from. In this past week we have all tried to pull together, as communities all around New Zealand have, to do our best for them. Government Ministers are working incredibly hard, as are local MPs of all parties and I want to acknowledge them all for that.

Part of the passing days is that discussion inevitably turn to matters that are more political. We had our first taste of that with the story about Bill English refusing to rule out cuts to Working for Families and changes to the interest free student loan scheme. John Key followed up today saying there was an ‘opportunity’ to look again at these policies. Phil Goff has responded saying that cutting incomes for families and increasing costs for students and graduates like this is not the correct response, and that there are other choices the government can make.

The mere fact of this debate has caused anguish for some. I accept that this is a sensitive area. As I said there are many people still waiting to learn the fate of their family members, and thousands of people doing it really tough every day. But the discussion about the future of Christchurch and what will be done is now in the public arena as likely costs are released by the government, and questions asked by the media and others. It does not, and should not stop the focus on rescue, recovery and ensuring the immediate health and safety of residents.

In fact it is important for our democracy that the debate is held. These are important decisions about the future of our whole country, especially Christchurch, but for all of us in the end. The choices that are made, and the priorities accorded to future spending need to be the subject of debate. There is need to hold the government to account, and to oppose and propose where necessary. This is not disrespectful to the people of Christchurch, it is in fact to support  them and take further steps to recovery.

We must strive to work together for the people of Christchurch. We must be sensitive to an emotionally charged situation. But there will be debate and disagreement. That is a healthy part of our democracy. That is part of politics. And politics need not be a dirty word. It should be the mechanism by which we go about about finding the best outcome for the people and the future of Christchurch and the rest of our great country.


Skills development – another 2010 issue for 2011

Posted by Carol Beaumont on January 9th, 2011

The Government’s performance must be measured not only by what they have done but also by what they have not done.

In my mind one of the most appalling omissions of the Key National government is in the area of skills development.   In 2010 $55 million was cut from industry training and went instead to increasing the number of university places.  While I support greater investment in our Universities and Polytechnics and while there may be areas of underspending or poor performance by some Industry Training Organisations the answer is not to take money away from a focus on developing the skills of  those already in the workforce but to look at improving performance and new iniatives.  There has been an absence of action by Government.  The agreed Skills Strategy was dropped, the Skills Forum scheduled to meet 6 times in 2010 did not met once and no new initiatives around upskilling the workforce have been actioned (or even announced).

At every level the need for investing in people and providing ongoing opportunities for upskilling is compelling and yet this is an area of almost complete lack of action.  At a time of low economic growth and high unemployment this is an essential component required to lift our economic performance.  This is recognised by many other countries and indeed has been part of stimulus packages in many of them.

Increasing skill levels is well understood to lift workplace productivity – it is not the whole answer but a significant element.  Higher skills, higher productivity and higher wages are inextricably linked.  The structural problems in all of these areas are clear.   Increasing skills provides greater employment opportunities for individuals and also the potential for greater employment security.  Along with David Cunliffe, Trevor Mallard and Grant Robertson we have been doing a lot of thinking about the links in these areas and will have good policy options to put to the country this year.

The positives are not just economic.  Skills development includes improving literacy, numeracy and IT skills; it includes the so called ’soft skills’ like problem solving, team work, self management as well as technical and trade skills. Skills development can be industry specific or generic and must be seen as an ongoing need.  Learning pre-employment, on the job and in the community as part of life long learning.  As people develop their skills they have the opportunity to increase in confidence and in their ability to participate at work, at home and in the community.   Just imagine the benefits to a family if a parent’s literacy is improved so that they can help their children learn to read or help with their homework.

The importance of the workplace in skills development through apprenticeships, through industry training generally and through deliberate pathways to progress both skills acquisition and skills utilisation and improved pay is fundamental.   There must be a commitment to providing opportunities to re-train to reflect changing needs including situations where people become unemployed through redundancy.  Most of us spend a significant portion of our adult lives in the paid workforce.  80% of the workforce of 10 years time are already in work so this area warrants a great deal of investment.  The respective contributions of businesses and government is something that needs to be agreed as does the respective role of employers, unions, Industry Training Organisations, Universities and Polytechnics. All have a role to play.

What is clear is that National has no vision about the potential of skills development , no real commitment to this area and certainly no understanding of the need to have significant investment in the skills development of New Zealanders.  Labour has a strong track record in this area and we will provide a much more ambitious approach.


ACT tail wags National dog

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 24th, 2010

Heather Roy’s voluntary student association membership bill has been reported back from the Education and Science Select Committee.  It recommends, with a few minor changes, that the bill proceed.  This is bad. 

In the Select Committee we heard from individual students whose ability to stay at university or polytechnic was the result of advocacy and representation from student associations.  Like the guy in Hamilton whose flat burned down and was about to be left with nothing because his insurance company gave him the run around, until the student association stepped in.

We also heard from tertiary institutions who do not support the Bill.  They appreciate the representation role played by student associations, and they know that they can not provide services in a cost effective way that associations with large amounts of voluntary labour can.

We heard from Australia how their version of voluntary membership destroyed the vast majority of the services and programmes that student associations ran.

The bizarre thing about this Bill is it actually takes away a choice for students.  The current law, which National put in place, allows students to decide by referenda if they will have a voluntary or universal association.  That is gone.

One curious thing, is Heather Roy’s media statement on this Bill focuses on calling for National to support her bill. She says

“I call on the National Party – indeed, all Parties of this House – to support my Bill and the right to freedom of association for students throughout New Zealand,” Mrs Roy said.

Why ever would she be worried about National’s support? Didn’t they just vote it through the Select Committee? How curious.


Why, Mr Joyce?

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 23rd, 2010

The government has decided that for students to retain eligibility for student loans, they need to pass more than half their course over a two year period. Fair enough some might say (though I have some concerns re Maori and Pacific students particularly.)

But that’s not what this post is about. This post is about whether it is fair that 2009 grades will be forming part of whether students will be eligible for loans in 2011. Remember the government only announced this policy in the 2010 Budget. So students in 2009 had no idea that there would be this requirement, they can’t go back and work any harder, and yet those grades will determine their eligibility for loans next year. To me this is demonstrably unfair and raises issues of natural justice.

As David Do from NZUSA said on TV this morning it is like lowering the speed limit in an area from 100km/h to 80km/h and then giving everyone who drove on the road the previous year at 85km/h a traffic ticket.

One Polytechnic has estimated that 20% of its students may be at risk of losing their entitlement for next year. Many of those students have come from elsewhere having failed last year, and despite doing well this year if they drop one paper they will lose their entitlement.

I asked Steven Joyce in the House today as to why he made the requirement retrospective. He did not properly answer. He has explained the overall policy, but not why he is applying on the basis of performance in the year before the policy was announced. Students deserve an answer.

As an aside Steven Joyce misled Parliament about whether he personally had ever mentioned the retrospective element of this policy before today. He claimed his media statement and Q and A on Budget Day did this. I can find no evidence of Mr Joyce releasing a Q and A on Budget Day, and his media release definitely does not metion it. I am waiting for him to make his personal statement.


Shift happens

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 7th, 2010

This is one version of a variety of YouTube videos on this theme.  It was brought to my attention by some early childhood educators in Albany, North Shore a couple of days ago, when we were talking about the future of education. Some challenging, yet stimulating thinking in this clip : Hang on until the end : it will astound you.


Cleaners get a reprieve

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 1st, 2010

Last week, Grant Robertson wrote about the Massey Uni cleaners who were facing massive cuts to hours or dismissal due to redundancy which was due to happen today.

Yesterday, Chief Judge GL Colgan issued a judgement which requires the parties to bargain for redundancy “entitlements”, but not including monetary compensation for redundancy.  He has also said that the cleaners should not be dismissed today so that the statutory processes arising from their entitlement to redundancy can take place.

It’s an interesting judgement.  It confirms that workers have an right to redundancy entitlements, despite there being specific requirements in the cleaners’ agreement that there be no redundancy compensation.

Of course all of this could be avoided if there were minimum redundancy entitlements in law.  But that’s a story for the next Labour Government (and a sorry tale about redundancy under the NACT government).


Massey Uni Cleaners deserve a fair go

Posted by Grant Robertson on August 24th, 2010

DSCF0030

Yesterday I visited a group of cleaners at Massey University’s Wellington campus. (apologies for poor photo quality). Along with their colleagues on the campuses in Palmerston North and Albany they are employed by OCS Limited to do the cleaning. OCS took over the contract for cleaning a couple of months ago and are pushing through changes to their employment conditions that are just shocking.

OCS have decided to move the workers from largely full time jobs to new jobs that will guarantee them only 25 hours a week for the 31 weeks of peak university time, and no guarantee of hours for the remaining 21 weeks of the year. The way they are doing this is by making the workers redundant and offering them new contracts with the reduced hours.

This is unfair and unjust. It will equate to a 35% drop in wages. These people are not well paid. They get just above the minimum wage. Many of them travel from Porirua to Wellington to work. While OCS as the contractor has the responsibility for the contracts it is concerning that this is happening on a publicly funded university campus. I have written to Steve Maharey as Vice-Chancellor expressing my concern.

The Service and Food Workers Union are taking the redundancy proposal to court on Thursday, as OCS are offering no redundancy pay. Anyone interested in supporting the workers I understand that some of them hope to be at the High Court in Wellington tomorrow from 9am onwards.


Massey shuts off summer school enrolments

Posted by Grant Robertson on July 22nd, 2010

It seems that at about 4.30 today Massey University announced to staff that they were closing enrolments for their summer school at 5pm. They had been due to close on the 1st of November. Seems a bizarre way to do it, and I am not sure if there was a rush in the half hour that they remained open!

The reason as stated on the Massey website is that they have now reached their funded cap and could take no more students in 2010 (except of course full fee paying international students). According to Big News those who had already enrolled may not get to study if there have not been sufficient enrolments in particular courses. Those courses will be cancelled.

As with Victoria closing off enrolments for the second semester this is going to disrupt plans and add costs for students and their families.

But I understand the position the universities find themselves in. Steven Joyce is still not moving to address this issue, and next year will be far worse. He is sitting on his hands, because he actually wants to “dampen demand”, and thinks it will all calm down in a year.

There is a lot of ad-hoc decision making from universities which will be leaving students and parents confused. There really is a need for leadership from the government on this to ensure that we get and retain as many people as possible  in tertiary education over the next year.


Oh well, who needs tertiary education anyway?

Posted by Maryan Street on May 23rd, 2010

The news for tertiary education and students was all bad in the budget. I will do a specific post on the impact on students later, but I just wanted to address some of the headline effects of the budget on tertiary ed to start with.

There is about $99 million LESS going into the sector this year than last year. Say what?  How is the economy going to get a “step change”, let alone the quantum leap we actually need, without investing in knowledge and skills?

The government will make much of the 1735 extra students they are funding in universities and the 3173 they are funding in polytechs. But these are not new students – they are simply funding the students already there whom the institutions are currently carrying as unfunded students. Steven Joyce says there will be 765 new students at universities. Divide that across 8 universities and you get fewer than 100 new students per university.  Take the 455 new polytech students and divide them across the 20 polys – and you get 23 new students per polytech.

This simply won’t cut it. The government wants a step change to occur through science – who grows scientists? Universities and some polytechs, that’s who.

And don’t get me started on the cuts of $3.4 million to Adult and Community Education delivered through high schools. They only had about $3.3 million left last year………


BUDGET 2010: Neither Fair Nor Fixing

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 20th, 2010

It’s Budget Day.  You’ll be hearing lots from us over the next few days and I hope many of you will join our Finance Team live here on Red Alert tonight at 8.30 pm.

Most New Zealanders already understand that a Budget that (at best) delivers only marginal gain to middle and lower income earners and a whopping great windfall to the top end, is not fair.  It is however, precsely what you would expect from National.

Equally important, the Budget as it has been foreshadowed will not fix the underlying problems of this economy: lack of savings, skills, innovation and exports.  These are exactly the themes Labour is pushing – as reflected in todays Dominion and Herald (note the Herald got the headline wrong).

If you don’t believe me on this – just refer to Swtizerland’s IMD World Competitiveness Ranking, which shows NZ slipping back for exactly the reasons Labour has been saying. 

Think about it, if the problems are insufficient savings, exports, skills and innovation, how on earth is raising GST and an income tax windfall for the wealthiest possibly going to address that?

It proves our underlying critique of this visionless National Government -  they had “nine long years” to think up policies to take the country forward, to deliver on the step change they campaigned for – and so far, nothing.


Are you reading this Mr Joyce?

Posted by Grant Robertson on May 8th, 2010

I hope Steven Joyce reads the feature story in the Dom Post this morning (not on-line so far as I can see). It is a story about the emerging importance of the Pasifika population in New Zealand to our future society and economy. Its an interesting read, but I was particularly taken by the story of Tristram Lupo-Samoa, a 23 year old of Niuean descent who is studying electronic engineering and computer systems at Victoria University.

He failed many of his core subjects in the first two years of a science degree. He’s now three years into a four year degree but it will take five years to complete as he had to repeat a first year paper.

This is the reality for many people, especially those from a background where there is no family history of tertiary education. Steven Joyce’s proposal to cut access to student loans (which Tristram relies on along with part-time work) if you fail more than half your course for two years is just too blunt an instrument. I am all for a merit based system, but not everyone starts from the same place. As Tristram says

Its pretty tough to be honest. I try to get help from everyone that I can. It was an unknown subject for my family, learning a whole lot of new things. It takes a lot of my time because it takes me a lot of time to understand concepts. Its hard for me but I am willing. I would rather have it hard than easy because I know it will pay off in the end.

Tristram sounds like a really sensible young man, but he says he sometimes asks himself why he is doing his study.

Because I want to achieve something, something great in my life. Something my parents and family can be proud of.

As a country we need to support and invest in Tristram, and not try to apply a one size fits policy that will deprive him and us of a great future.


Lockwood and me in 93

Posted by Grant Robertson on April 6th, 2010

I spent a bit of time over Easter cleaning out the basement and going through some boxes.   One of the gems I came across is this clipping from the Otago Daily Times in 1993.  (click the picture below for the full-size image). Lockwood  looks much the same. Not sure about me.  In my defence it was the 90s, big  glasses were in, ok? 

At this point in time Lockwood was refusing to go on to campus, so we had driven to Lincoln the week before to find him, but he cancelled the visit.  To his credit he eventually did agree to meet with us.  At the time I would never have believed him that he was “our best friend in Cabinet”, now I think he might have been right!

Picture 107